Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Baudillo v. Pam Car & Truck Rental, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 14, 2005

23 A.D.3d 420; 803 N.Y.S.2d 922

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Borelli v. Ogno (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Thomason v. Thomason (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Browdame v. Candura (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Kouvaras v. Hertz Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Miller v. Afshin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Faulkner v. Steinman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Kasim v. Defretias (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Yashayev v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Welch v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Agathe v. Tun Chen Wang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Chui Fong Lam v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Hernandez v. Stanley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Caracci v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
LaCagnina v. Bernard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Spektor v. Dichy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Kavanagh v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Mirochnik v. Ostrovskiy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Paulino v. Dedios (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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 defendant Pam Car & Truck Rental, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated January 3, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Mas Vega Baudillo did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). “Notably, the report of the defendants’ orthopedist specified the degrees of the range of motion in the plaintiffs cervical spine without comparing these findings to the normal range of motion. Thus, the defendants’ proof failed to objectively demonstrate that the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent consequential or significant limitation of use of his cervical spine as a result of the subject accident” (Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511, 512 [2004]; see Claude v Clements, 301 AD2d 554 [2003]). Since the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing a *421prima facie case, it was unnecessary “to consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]; see also Facci v Kaminsky, 18 AD3d 806 [2005]; Lesane v Tejada, 15 AD3d 358 [2005]). Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.