Blake v. Portexit Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Defendants satisfied their initial burden on summary judgment by establishing, prima facie, with the submission of the medical reports of their expert neurologist, orthopedist and radiologist, that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants set forth objective tests supporting their claim that plaintiff suffered no limitation in range of motion.
Plaintiff, in response, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he suffered a significant or permanent consequential limitation of use of his spine. His chiropractor “identified…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pommells v. PerezNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Valentin v.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- DeJesus v. PaulinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Takahisa Onishi v. N & B Taxi, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Gorden v. TibulcioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Santana v. Tic-Tak Limo Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Torain v. BahAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Green v. RepineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Zambrana v. TimothyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Johnson v. GarciaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.