You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Shields v. New York Livery Leasing, Inc.

Citations: 90 A.D.3d 1018; 934 N.Y.2d 842

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 26, 2011; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries to her lumbosacral spine and shoulders due to an accident. The defendants sought summary judgment, presenting medical evidence that indicated the injuries did not meet the serious injury threshold outlined in Insurance Law § 5102(d). Citing relevant case law, including Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys. and Gaddy v. Eyler, they argued that the injuries were not serious. In response, the plaintiff submitted medical evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact regarding whether her spinal injuries qualified as serious under the categories of permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use as defined by the same law. Consequently, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed. Judges Skelos, Angiolillo, Belen, Lott, and Roman concurred with this decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Summary Judgment

Application: The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Reasoning: Consequently, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed.

Establishing Triable Issue of Fact

Application: The plaintiff provided medical evidence to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding the seriousness of her injuries, challenging the defendants' motion by showing potential qualification under specific categories.

Reasoning: In response, the plaintiff submitted medical evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact regarding whether her spinal injuries qualified as serious under the categories of permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use as defined by the same law.

Serious Injury Threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d)

Application: The defendants argued that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the serious injury threshold defined by the law, using medical evidence to support their motion for summary judgment.

Reasoning: The defendants sought summary judgment, presenting medical evidence that indicated the injuries did not meet the serious injury threshold outlined in Insurance Law § 5102(d).