Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Pech v. Yael Taxi Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 31, 2003

303 A.D.2d 733; 758 N.Y.S.2d 110

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Gualtieri v. Farina (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
Miles v. Hall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Trigoso v. Correa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Pouncey v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Friedman v. Progressive Direct Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Friedman v. Progressive Direct Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Kearse v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Hurtado v. Shakur (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2004)
Howard v. King (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Taher v. Valerio-Mena (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated June 21, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957 [1992]). In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff, inter alia, submitted magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) reports taken approximately two months after the accident which revealed disc bulges in the cervical and lumbar portions of her spine. She also submitted an affirmation from a physician, and a medical report from another physician, which quantified restrictions in the range of motion of the plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine based on both initial and recent examinations (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Abedin v Tynika Motors, 279 AD2d 595 [2001]; Moreno v Delcid, 262 AD2d 464, 465 [1999]). The unsworn medical report of one of the physicians and the MRI reports were initially relied upon by the defendants, and were therefore properly before the court (see Raso v Statewide Auto Auction, 262 AD2d 387 [1999]). These submissions were sufficient to *734raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent or consequential limitation of the use of her cervical and lumbar spine (see Jacobowitz v Roventini, 302 AD2d 432 [2003]). Altman, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.