Amofa v. N.S.C. Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amofa v. N.S.C. Leasing Corp.

247 A.D.2d 289, 668 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 289 (Amofa v. N.S.C. Leasing Corp.) 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

Amofa v. N.S.C. Leasing Corp., 247 A.D.2d 289, 668 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered June 12, 1997, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious [290]*290injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), namely, a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236; Decker v Rassaert, 131 AD2d 626, 627), or a “permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system”, is raised by the affidavit of plaintiff’s treating neurologist, based upon his personal examination of plaintiff and supported by objectively ascertained and quantified findings, opining that plaintiff suffered from a nerve root injury with resulting 25% loss of range of motion of the spine (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1020; Cowley v Crocker, 186 AD2d 939, lv denied 81 NY2d 703; Iscovitch-Bero v Chase, 221 AD2d 847).

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered June 12, 1997, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious [290]*290injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), namely, a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236; Decker v Rassaert, 131 AD2d 626, 627), or a “permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system”, is raised by the affidavit of plaintiff’s treating neurologist, based upon his personal examination of plaintiff and supported by objectively ascertained and quantified findings, opining that plaintiff suffered from a nerve root injury with resulting 25% loss of range of motion of the spine (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1020; Cowley v Crocker, 186 AD2d 939, lv denied 81 NY2d 703; Iscovitch-Bero v Chase, 221 AD2d 847).

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 289, 668 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amofa-v-nsc-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack