Santos v New York City Tr. Auth.

Annotate this Case
Santos v New York City Tr. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 06873 Decided on October 16, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 16, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
8295 307082/09

[*1]Doris Santos, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

New York City Transit Authority, et al., Defendants-Respondents.




Sim & Records, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for
appellants.
Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Jane Shufer of counsel), for
respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 21, 2011, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint alleging serious injuries under Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Their orthopedist's unexplained findings of significant limitations in the cervical and lumbar spine (see Yamamoto v Carled Cab Corp., 66 AD3d 603 [1st Dept 2009]) conflict with their findings of an absence of serious injury to the spine (Feaster v Boulabat, 77 AD3d 440, 440-441 [1st Dept 2010]). Defendants also failed to submit objective evidence of the absence of any spinal injuries or abnormalities. Nor did they submit any expert opinion that plaintiff's alleged injuries were not caused by the accident. Because defendants failed to meet their burden, their motion must be denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers
(see Escotto v Vallejo, 95 AD3d 667, 668 [1st Dept 2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 16, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.