Williams v. Tatham
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as to both the permanent and nonpermanent categories of serious injury, by submitting evidence, in the form of an affirmed report from a radiologist, demonstrating that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) since the MRI *473films revealed evidence of degeneration in plaintiffs back and right shoulder that preexisted the accident (see Linton v Nawaz, 62 AD3d 434, 438 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 821 [2010]; Guadalupe v Blondie Limo, Inc., 43 AD3d 669 [2007]; Yagi v…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Linton v. NawazNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Thompson v. AbbasiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Lee Yuen v. Arka Memory Cab Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Linton v. NawazAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Guadalupe v. Blondie Limo, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Martinez v. Goldmag Hacking Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Pannell-Thomas v. BathAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Martin v. Portexit Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Lindo v. BrettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Khan v. Goldmag Hacking Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.