Tadesse v. Degnich
| Decision Date | 24 February 2011 |
| Citation | 917 N.Y.S.2d 569,81 A.D.3d 570 |
| Parties | Rahel TADESSE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nabil M. DEGNICH, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Daniel Awvah et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mead, Hecht, Conklin & Gallagher, LLP, Mamaroneck (Sharon A. Mosca of counsel), for appellants.
The Saftler Law Firm, New York (James W. Bacher of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered June 28, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, inthis action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order and denied appellants' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court properly granted plaintiff's motion for reargument, since it had misapplied a "controlling principle of law" ( Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 567, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588 [1979]; see CPLR 2221[d] ). When dismissing the complaint as against appellants, the court improperly relied on the gap-in-treatment argument, which appellants raised for the first time in their reply papers ( see McNair v. Lee, 24 A.D.3d 159, 805 N.Y.S.2d 67 [2005] ). Indeed, the court determined that plaintiff had otherwise raised a triable issue of fact, but that her failure to address the gap in her treatment was "fatal" to her case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calcano v. Rodriguez
...respect to plaintiff's 90/180–day claim, since the argument was raised for the first time in his reply papers ( see Tadesse v. Degnich, 81 A.D.3d 570, 917 N.Y.S.2d 569 [1st Dept. 2011]; McNair v. Lee, 24 A.D.3d 159, 805 N.Y.S.2d 67 [1st Dept. 2005] ). Since the burden never shifted to plain......
-
Pantojas v. Lajara Auto Corp.
...that issue before the court ( see Sylla v. Brickyard Inc., 104 A.D.3d 605, 961 N.Y.S.2d 455 [1st Dept.2013]; Tadesse v. Degnich, 81 A.D.3d 570, 917 N.Y.S.2d 569 [1st Dept.2011] ). Because plaintiff is entitled to present his claims based on the lumbar injuries, he is also entitled to seek d......
-
Moreira v. Mahabir
...on appeal (see Paulling v. City Car & Limousine Servs., Inc. , 155 A.D.3d 481, 65 N.Y.S.3d 19 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Tadesse v. Degnich , 81 A.D.3d 570, 917 N.Y.S.2d 569 [1st Dept. 2011] ). In any event, plaintiff's physician noted that therapy and other treatment ceased because it failed to im......
-
Amaro v. Am. Med. Response of N.Y., Inc.
...burden with respect to plaintiff's 90/180–day claim, since they first raised this claim in their reply papers ( see Tadesse v. Degnich, 81 A.D.3d 570, 917 N.Y.S.2d 569 [2011];McNair v. Lee, 24 A.D.3d 159, 160, 805 N.Y.S.2d 67 [2005] ). Were we to address this claim, we would find it to be w......