Casey v. Mas Transportation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-05646. |
| Citation | 2008 NY Slip Op 01488,852 N.Y.S.2d 373,48 A.D.3d 610 |
| Parties | MAURA CASEY, Respondent, v. MAS TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of her lumbar spine via the submissions of her treating physician (see Green v Nara Car & Limo, Inc. 42 AD3d 430 [2007]; Lim v Tiburzi, 36 AD3d 671 [2007]; Shpakovskaya v Etienne, 23 AD3d 368 [2005]; Clervoix v Edwards, 10 AD3d 626 [2004]; Acosta v Rubin, 2 AD3d 657 [2003]; Rosado v Martinez, 289 AD2d 386 [2001]; Vitale v Lev Express Cab Corp., 273 AD2d 225 [2000]). The plaintiff's treating physician established, based on his contemporaneous and most recent examinations of the plaintiff, as well as upon his review of the plaintiff's lumbar magnetic resonance imaging report, which showed, inter alia, herniated discs, that the plaintiff's lumbar injuries and observed range of motion limitations were permanent and causally related to the subject accident. He concluded, in his most recent affirmed medical report, that the plaintiff's injuries amounted to a permanent consequential limitation of use of her lumbar spine. Contrary to the defendants' assertions, the affidavit of the plaintiff adequately explained any gap in her treatment history (see Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438 [2003]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perl v. Meher
...98 N.Y.2d at 353, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; Sanevich v. Lyubomir, 66 A.D.3d 665, 885 N.Y.S.2d 635; Casey v. Mas Transp., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 610, 611, 852 N.Y.S.2d 373; Green v. Nara Car & Limo, Inc., 42 A.D.3d 430, 431, 839 N.Y.S.2d 543). Accordingly, in my view, the Supreme Court pro......
-
Guzman v. Mercurio
...883. 935 NYs2d 77 [2d Dept 2011]: Abdeiaziz v. Fazfil, 78 A.D.3d 1086, 912 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2d Dept 2010]; Casey v. Mas Transp., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 610. 852 N.Y.S.2d [2d Dept 2010J). Specifically, Dr. Buurma. plaintiff s treating chiropractor, states, based upon his contemporaneous and recent exa......
-
Williams v. Fava Cab Corp.
...743; Barry v. Valerio, 72 A.D.3d 996, 902 N.Y.S.2d 97; Williams v. Clark, 54 A.D.3d 942, 864 N.Y.S.2d 493; Casey v. Mas Transp., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 610, 852 N.Y.S.2d 373; Green v. Nara Car & Limo, Inc., 42 A.D.3d 430, 839 N.Y.S.2d 543; Francovig v. Senekis Cab Corp., 41 A.D.3d 643, 644–645, 83......
-
Barry v. Valerio
...Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Williams v. Clark, 54 A.D.3d 942, 864 N.Y.S.2d 493; Casey v. Mas Transp., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 610, 852 N.Y.S.2d 373; Green v. Nara Car & Limo, Inc., 42 A.D.3d 430, 839 N.Y.S.2d 543; Francovig v. Senekis Cab Corp., 41 A.D.3d 643, 644-645, 8......