Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy
| Decision Date | 08 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | MARIACA-OLMO,A |
| Citation | 640 N.Y.S.2d 604,226 A.D.2d 437 |
| Parties | Jesusppellant, v. David MIZRHY, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael F. Mongelli II, Flushing (Cindy E. Menoudakos, on the brief), for appellant.
Stuart M. Herz, Garden City (Lori Herz, on the brief), for respondents.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and THOMPSON, FLORIO and McGINITY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated February 28, 1995, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The Supreme Court improperly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. A magnetic resonance imaging of the plaintiff's lumbosacral spine shows, inter alia, a "centrally bulging annulus at [the] L5-S1 level." The defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish as a matter of law that this injury is not causally related to the accident in question or that it is not a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Thus, the defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiff's papers in opposition to the defendants' motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Holtz v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 147 A.D.2d 857, 858, 538 N.Y.S.2d 80).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nuzzi v. ABA Transp. Holding Co.
...papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to same. See Tchjevskaia v. Chase, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437, 640 N.Y.S.2d 604 (2d Dept. 1996). Where defendants fail to demonstrate that they have met their prima facie burden, the Court will deny the motion fo......
-
Phillip v. Singh
... ... accident, as Dr. Guttman did not render an opinion on the ... issue of causation. See Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 ... A.D.2d 437 (2d Dept 1996). Likewise, although the report ... indicates that Dr. Guttman examined the plaintiff's left ... ...
-
Jankowsky v. Smith, 01-08951
...not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers under these circumstances (see Chaplin v Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437). ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., ...
-
Smith v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority
...Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; Puma v. Player, 233 A.D.2d 308, 649 N.Y.S.2d 461; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437, 640 N.Y.S.2d 604; Parker v. Defontaine-Stratton, 231 A.D.2d 412, 647 N.Y.S.2d 189; Rut v. Grigonis, 214 A.D.2d 721, 625 N.Y.S.2d MANGA......
-
G. Overview of the Most Litigated Threshold Categories
...838 N.Y.S.2d 669 (2d Dep't 2007); Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538, 725 N.Y.S.2d 349 (2d Dep't 2001); Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437, 640 N.Y.S.2d 604 (2d Dep't 1996); Florio v. Pape, 20 A.D.3d 549, 798 N.Y.S.2d 693 (2d Dep't 2005); Redemption Church of Christ v. William......
-
G. Overview Of The Most Litigated Threshold Categories
...838 N.Y.S.2d 669 (2d Dep't 2007); Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538, 725 N.Y.S.2d 349 (2d Dep't 2001); Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437, 640 N.Y.S.2d 604 (2d Dep't 1996); Florio v. Pape, 20 A.D.3d 549, 798 N.Y.S.2d 693 (2d Dep't 2005); Redemption Church of Christ v. William......