Legal Opinion
Baez v. Boyd
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 15, 2011PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the affirmed reports of their medical experts. Their orthopedic expert reported ranges of motion for the subject ankle and foot, compared them to the norm, found that plaintiff had no range-of-motion limitations, and concluded that his injuries had resolved (see Glover v Copres Contr. Corp., 61 AD3d 549, 549 [2009]). Their other physician reviewed the X rays and MRIs of the subject areas and found that the infant plaintiff had sustained no fracture.
*525Plaintiffs, however, raised a triable issue of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Linton v. NawazNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Rubin v. SMS Taxi Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Glover v. Capres Contracting Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Elias v. MahlahAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3Cited by5 opinions
- Perez-Hernandez v. M. Marte Auto Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Vaughan v. LeonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Melo v. GrullonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Melo v. GrullonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Perez-Hernandez v. M. Marte Auto Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013