# Rahman v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · April 12, 2004 · 6 A.D.3d 518

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5673748

## Case

- **Full name:** Gul K. Rahman v. Wilma Brown
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** April 12, 2004
- **Citations:** 6 A.D.3d 518; 775 N.Y.S.2d 344
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5673748

## Opinion text

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J), dated January 28, 2003, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the affirmations of the plaintiff’s physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motions raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury.
*519 Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5673748. Public record. Not legal advice.