Adetunji v. U-Haul Co. of Wisconsin, Inc.

250 A.D.2d 483, 672 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6179
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 483 (Adetunji v. U-Haul Co. of Wisconsin, Inc.) 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
Adetunji v. U-Haul Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 250 A.D.2d 483, 672 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered December 18, 1997, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The straight-leg raising tests conducted by plaintiff’s treating physician and his observation of spasms, which he quantified as indicating a 30% loss of motion in plaintiff’s lumbosacral spine and a 30% loss of rotation, abduction and extension in the cervical spine, constitute objective evidence of a serious injury (see, O’Sullivan v Atrium Bus Co., 246 AD2d 418; Risbrook v Coronamos Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 397; Kim v Cohen, 208 AD2d 807), and those findings, two years after the accident, causing the doctor to believe the injuries were permanent, create a triable issue as to whether plaintiff did indeed suffer a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), notwithstanding the normal results of X-rays, an MRI and a CT scan (see, O’Sullivan v Atrium Bus Co., supra; Cammarere v Villanova, 166 AD2d 760, 761). Plaintiff’s assertion that he was unable to work for four months following his accident, confirmed by the physician’s affirmation that he confined plaintiff to bed rest for that period, also establishes that plaintiff could not engage in his usual and customary activities for at least 90 out of the 180 days following the ac[484]*484cident, and the absence of corroborating work records merely creates a triable issue of fact. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Nelson v. Tamara Taxi Inc.
112 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Lavali v. Lavali
89 A.D.3d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mercado-Arif v. Garcia
74 A.D.3d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Vidal v. Maldonado
23 Misc. 3d 186 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Thompson v. Abbasi
15 A.D.3d 95 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Brown v. Achy
9 A.D.3d 30 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Pommells v. Perez
4 A.D.3d 101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Bobi v. Soulanzos
307 A.D.2d 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Lantigua v. Williams
305 A.D.2d 286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Aguilar v. N.Y.C. Water Works, Inc.
298 A.D.2d 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Manrique v. Warshaw Woolen Associates, Inc.
297 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Fofana v. Ryder Trucks
289 A.D.2d 140 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Mastrantuono v. United States
163 F. Supp. 2d 244 (S.D. New York, 2001)
Garcia v. Arrington
282 A.D.2d 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Shulman v. Papell
273 A.D.2d 111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Watt v. Eastern Investigative Bureau
273 A.D.2d 226 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Pagels v. P.V.S. Chemicals, Inc.
266 A.D.2d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Paolini v. Sienkiewicz
262 A.D.2d 1020 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Kaplan v. Gak
259 A.D.2d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 A.D.2d 483, 672 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adetunji-v-u-haul-co-of-wisconsin-inc-nyappdiv-1998.