AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

FRANCINE BENTIVEGNA, Respondent, v. BRIAN STEIN, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And Third-Party Actions).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against the defendant Brian Stein, and substituting there for a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see Tchjevskaia v Chase), 15 AD3d 389). The affirmed medical reports prepared by the appellant's examining orthopedist and neurologist disclosed that they found limitations in the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar ranges of motion, respectively.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of that branch of her cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case ( see CPLR 3212 [b]) that the subject motor vehicle accident was proximately caused by negligence on the part of the appellant.

Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary for us to consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion and the relevant branch of the cross motion ( see Chaplin v Taylor), 273 AD2d 188).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BENTIVEGNA v. STEIN
(Jul 31, 2007)