| Locke v Buksh |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00356 [58 AD3d 698] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Edwin Johnny Locke, Respondent, v Sikamdar Ali Bukshet al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Harmon, Linder & Rogowsky, New York, N.Y. (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated December 5, 2007, which denied theirmotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did notsustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to meet their prima facieburden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning ofInsurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345[2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In support of their motion, thedefendants relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of their examining orthopedicsurgeon. In his report he noted the existence of significant limitations in the plaintiff's lumbarspine range of motion (see Hurtte vBudget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393 [2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555[2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41AD3d 472 [2007]). Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency ofthe plaintiff's opposition papers (seeHurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Carni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.