Court Opinion

ID: 5746109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:49:40.196584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:09.699146
License: Public Domain

The motion was properly denied on the ground that defendants’ expert did not address the MRI reports showing herniated discs, which in conjunction with other evidence was indicative of serious injury (see Wadford v Gruz, 35 AD3d 258 [2006]; Nix v Yang Gao Xiang, 19 AD3d 227 [2005]). Since defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion, there is no need to consider plaintiffs opposing papers (see id.). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.