Omar v. Bello
| Decision Date | 13 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2003-08500. |
| Citation | 785 N.Y.S.2d 563,2004 NY Slip Op 09274,13 A.D.3d 430 |
| Parties | NESTOR OMAR et al., Respondents, v. BARBARANNE BELLO et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained 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]). The affirmed medical report of the defendants' orthopedist indicated the existence of limitations in motion of the plaintiff Nestor Omar's lumbar spine. The affirmed medical report of the defendants' neurologist indicated the existence of limitations in motion of the plaintiff Rina Garcia's cervical and lumbar spine. Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, it is unnecessary "to consider whether the plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the defendants' motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact" (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]; see also Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jean-baptiste v. Walton
...after the accident. (Mullen v. Lauffer, 31 A.D.3d 402 (2d Dept. 2006); Kaminsky v. Waldner, 19 A.D.3d 370 (2d Dept. 2005); Omar v. Bello, 13 A.D.3d 430 (2d Dept. 2004)). As defendants have failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury, it is unnecessary to consider whether the pl......
-
Kaur v. Cardona
...suffered an approximately 14% loss of range of motion to her shoulder (155-160 degrees where normal is 170-180 degrees). (Omar v Bello, 13 A.D.3d 430 [2nd Dept 2004].) Finally, Kaur adequately explained the gap in treatment by stating that no-fault benefits were terminated. (Jean-Baptiste v......
-
Hernandez v. Vittorini
...of establishing a prima facie case. Plaintiffs papers in opposition are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. (Omar v Bello, 13 A.D.3d 430 [2d Dept 2004]; see, Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 238 A.D.2d 538 [2d Dept 2001]; see also Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437 [2d Dept 1996]). ......
-
Russell v. Hinkson
...of establishing a prima facie case. Plaintiffs papers in opposition are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Omar v. Bello, 13 A.D.3d 430 [2d Dept 2004]; see Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 238 A.D.2d 538 [2d Dept 2001]; see also Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437 [2d Dept 1996]).......
-
G. Overview of the Most Litigated Threshold Categories
...A.D.3d 415, 818 N.Y.S.2d 238 (2d Dep't 2006); Scotti v. Boutureira, 8 A.D.3d 652, 652, 779 N.Y.S.2d 255 (2d Dep't 2004); Omar v. Bello, 13 A.D.3d 430, 430–31, 786 N.Y.S.2d 563 (2d Dep't 2004); Grant v. Parsons Coach, Ltd., 12 A.D.3d 484, 485, 784 N.Y.S.2d 647 (2d Dep't 2004); Coscia v. 938 ......
-
G. Overview Of The Most Litigated Threshold Categories
...A.D.3d 415, 818 N.Y.S.2d 238 (2d Dep't 2006); Scotti v. Boutureira, 8 A.D.3d 652, 652, 779 N.Y.S.2d 255 (2d Dep't 2004); Omar v. Bello, 13 A.D.3d 430, 430–31, 786 N.Y.S.2d 563 (2d Dep't 2004); Grant v. Parsons Coach, Ltd., 12 A.D.3d 484, 485, 784 N.Y.S.2d 647 (2d Dep't 2004); Coscia v. 938 ......