green
Positive treatment
Trending · 100 recent citers
14.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Navarro v. Afifi
Since the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the injury to his right shoulder, it is not necessary to determine whether the evidence he submitted raised a triable issue of fact as to whether his other alleged injuries meet the “no fault” threshold (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Rivera v Ramos, 132 AD3d 655 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chul Koo Jeong v. Denike
Since the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the injury to the cervical region of his spine, it is not necessary to determine whether the evidence he submitted raised a triable issue of fact as to whether his other alleged injuries meet the “no fault” threshold (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Rivera v Ramos, 132 AD3d 655 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Sloane
Since Rivera raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the injury to the lumbar region of his spine, it is not necessary to determine whether the evidence he submitted raised a triable issue of fact as to whether his other alleged injuries meet the “no fault” threshold (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Rivera v Ramos, 132 AD3d 655 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Uribe v. Jimenez
Since the plaintiff raised a triable issue with respect to the rib fracture, it is not necessary to determine whether her other claimed injuries meet the threshold (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Rivera v Ramos, 132 AD3d 655 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Ramos
Since the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the injuries to the cervical region of his spine, it is not necessary to determine whether his proof with respect to his other alleged injuries would have been sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see Linton v Nawaz 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fedorova v. Kirkland
Because plaintiff has sufficiently established that at least some of her injuries meet the “no-fault” threshold, we do not need to examine her proof with respect to the other injuries (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Herman v. Moore
Auth., 99 AD3d 550 [1st Dept 2012]), or determine whether she raised an issue of fact as to any other claimed injury (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Herman v. Moore
Auth., 99 AD3d 550 [1st Dept 2012]), or determine whether she raised an issue of fact as to any other claimed injury (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chatoorang v. Navarrete-Duque
In view of the foregoing finding that the injuries to plaintiffs teeth meet the no-fault threshold, “it is unnecessary to address whether his proof with respect to other injuries he allegedly sustained would have been sufficient to withstand defendant’s] motion for summary judgment” (Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548, 549-550 [1st Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chatoorang v. Navarrete-Duque
In view of the foregoing finding that the injuries to plaintiffs teeth meet the no-fault threshold, “it is unnecessary to address whether his proof with respect to other injuries he allegedly sustained would have been sufficient to withstand defendant’s] motion for summary judgment” (Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548, 549-550 [1st Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Camacho v. Espinoza
Since plaintiff established that some injuries meet the “no-fault” threshold, “it is unnecessary to address whether [her] proof with respect to other injuries [s]he allegedly sustained would have been sufficient to withstand defendants’ motion for summary judgment” (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Perez
Although plaintiffs’ experts did not expressly address defendants’ expert’s opinion that the injuries were the result of degenerative changes, by relating the injuries to the accident, plaintiffs’ physicians raised triable issues of fact (Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208 [2011]; Linton v Nawaz, 62 AD3d 434 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Yuen v Arka Memory Cab Corp., 80 AD3d 481 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
De La Cruz v. Hernandez
In any event, plaintiffs’ chiropractor’s attribution of the injuries to the accident raised a factual issue (see Linton v Nawaz, 62 AD3d 434, 440-441 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Yuen v Arka Memory Cab Corp., 80 AD3d 481, 482 [2011]; Malloy v Matute, 79 AD3d 584 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joris v. UMF Car & Limo Service
Since the appellants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Bright v Moussa, 72 AD3d 859, 860 [2010]; Menezes v Khan, 67 AD3d 654, 654-655 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. John
Since the appellants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Bright v Moussa, 72 AD3d at 860 ; Menezes v Khan, 67 AD3d at 654-655 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mugno v. Juran
Since the appellants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Bright v Moussa, 72 AD3d at 860 ; Menezes v Khan, 67 AD3d at 654-655 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee Yuen v. Arka Memory Cab Corp.
Although plaintiff’s expert did not expressly address Dr. Montalbano’s nonconclusory opinion that the injuries were degenerative and/or congenital in origin, “by attributing the injuries to a different, yet altogether equally plausible, cause, that is, the accident,” he rejected the defense expert’s opinion and his opinion was entitled to equal weight (Linton v Nawaz, 62 AD3d 434 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; see also Peluso v Janice Taxi Co., Inc., 77 AD3d 491 [2010]; Jacobs, 76 AD3d 905 ; Torain v Bah, 78 AD3d 588 [2010]; Feaster v Boulabat, 77 AD3d 440 [2010]; contra Farri…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McClelland v. Estevez
Furthermore, although plaintiffs evidence regarding his injuries to his cervical spine and right elbow is limited, where “plaintiff establishe[s] that at least some of his injuries meet the ‘no-fault’ threshold, it is unnecessary to address whether his proof with respect to other injuries he allegedly sustained would have been sufficient to withstand [defendant’s] motion for summary judgment” (Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; see also Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548, 549 [2010] [“(o)nce a prima facie case of serious injury has been established and the trier of fact dete…
discussed
Cited "see"
CROISDALE, SANDRA J. v. WEED, ROBERT R.
We conclude that, although defendants contended in support of the motion that plaintiff’s left knee injuries were preexisting and the result of a degenerative condition, “they failed to submit evidence establishing as a matter of law that the injuries were entirely [preexisting] . . . and were not exacerbated by the accident in question” (Benson v Lillie, 72 AD3d 1619, 1620 [2010]; see Linton v Nawaz, 62 AD3d 434, 439 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 821 [2010]; Schreiber v Krehbiel, 64 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Graves v. L&N Car Service
Specifically, Dr. Rosenfeld opined that plaintiff did not have normal range of motion and had “sustained a permanent disability as a result of the bulging and herniated discs in her cervical spine and lumbar spine.” He concluded that “based upon this patient[’]s history, treatment, physical examination, range of motion testing, and review of the MRI and EMG test results,” these injuries “are the direct result of the automobile accident of July 23, 2007.” Moreover, Dr. Shapiro, a radiologist, attested to MRI studies (upon which Dr. Rosenfeld relied) that revealed, inter alia, “f…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John R. Linton Et Al., Respondents,
v.
Muhammad Nawaz Et Al., Appellants
v.
Muhammad Nawaz Et Al., Appellants
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 6, 2010.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York City (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellants., Law Offices of Mark S. Gray, New York City (Peter J. Eliopoulos of counsel), for respondents.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 100 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
In this personal injury case in which a taxi struck the plaintiff, the evidence plaintiff proffered relating to injuries to his right shoulder and lumbosacral spine raised a triable question of fact as to whether he suffered a serious injury that was causally related to the accident under the permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and/or significant limitation of a body function or system criteria (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Since plaintiff established that at least some of his injuries meet the “no-fault” threshold, it is unnecessary to address whether his proof with respect to other injuries he allegedly sustained would have been sufficient to withstand defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.