Reyes v. Diaz
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Jaggi v. Munger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Holliday v. City of New Rochelle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Valdez v. Classic Hauling, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Cuthill v. Won Min Yun (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Ceac v. Baby Joseph (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Shriki v. New York City Tr. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Wickman v. Kastavis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Christian v. My Car Auto Transp., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Zennia v. Ramsey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Karounos v. Doulalas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Singer v. Gae Limo Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Biascochea v. Boves (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Luigi v. Avis Cab Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Luigi v. Avis Cab Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Mensah v. Salah Enterprises, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
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
Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants’ orthopedic surgeon failed to indicate the objective tests used to determine the range of motion in plaintiff’s hip. Defendants failed to offer any expert opinion addressed to plaintiffs claimed psychological injuries (see Offman v Singh, 27 AD3d 284 [2006]). In addition, the opinion of defendants’ radiologist that plaintiffs herniation was degenerative was “too equivocal to satisfy defendant^’] prima facie burden to show that such herniation was not caused by a traumatic event” (Glynn v Hopkins, 55 AD3d 498, 498 [2008]).
In view of the foregoing, we need not consider the sufficiency of plaintiffs opposition (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Catterson, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.