Addison v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Addison v. New York City Transit Authority

208 A.D.2d 368, 618 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 368 (Addison v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Addison v. New York City Transit Authority, 208 A.D.2d 368, 618 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered February 24, 1994, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motions are denied, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

The record contains a professional’s affirmation (CPLR 2106) by Dr. Melamed, one of plaintiffs treating physicians, which offers the opinion ("with a reasonable degree of medical certainty”) that plaintiffs "injury to her lower back and the restriction of motion of her lower back is permanent in nature.” This affirmation is the equivalent of a "sworn” statement, and the opinion therein is supported by Dr. Me-lamed’s own examination of the patient, as well as by reference to an objective diagnostic test conducted by Dr. Suarez, which is reported by the latter elsewhere in the record (see, Braham v U-Haul Co., 195 AD2d 277, 278). This should have been sufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Motion insofar as it seeks reargument is granted, and upon reargument the prior unpublished decision and order of this Court entered on August 11, 1994 (Appeal No. 52226) is recalled and vacated, and a new memorandum substituted therefor. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered February 24, 1994, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motions are denied, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

The record contains a professional’s affirmation (CPLR 2106) by Dr. Melamed, one of plaintiffs treating physicians, which offers the opinion ("with a reasonable degree of medical certainty”) that plaintiffs "injury to her lower back and the restriction of motion of her lower back is permanent in nature.” This affirmation is the equivalent of a "sworn” statement, and the opinion therein is supported by Dr. Me-lamed’s own examination of the patient, as well as by reference to an objective diagnostic test conducted by Dr. Suarez, which is reported by the latter elsewhere in the record (see, Braham v U-Haul Co., 195 AD2d 277, 278). This should have been sufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Motion insofar as it seeks reargument is granted, and upon reargument the prior unpublished decision and order of this Court entered on August 11, 1994 (Appeal No. 52226) is recalled and vacated, and a new memorandum substituted therefor. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 368, 618 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/addison-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack