From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Langford v. Jewett Transportation Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 2000
271 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted February 23, 2000.

April 3, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated August 16, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Caulfield Law Office (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Lawrence B. Goodman] of counsel), for appellants.

Myron G. Lasser, P.C., Staten Island, N. Y., for respondents.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted, inter alia, magnetic resonance imaging and computerized axial tomography scan reports of the plaintiff Anita Conte Langford's lumbar spine approximately one month and three months after the subject accident. These reports revealed the existence of several bulging discs in her spine. Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff Anita Conte Langford's injuries were not serious within the meaning ofInsurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Faruque v. Ponce, 259 A.D.2d 464 ;Rosmarin v. Lamontanaro, 238 A.D.2d 567 ; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437 ).


Summaries of

Langford v. Jewett Transportation Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 2000
271 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Langford v. Jewett Transportation Service

Case Details

Full title:ANITA CONTE LANGFORD, et al., respondents, v. JEWETT TRANSPORTATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 3, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 435

Citing Cases

Woods-Smith v. Tighe

The defendants did not demonstrate that this injury was not causally related to the subject accident, or that…

Urbanski v. Mulieri

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in…