Baker v. Catania

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baker v. Catania

151 A.D.2d 629, 542 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8200

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1989·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff John E. Baker, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered September 15, 1988, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The plaintiff John E. Baker, Jr., was injured when an automobile he was operating was struck by an automobile owned by the defendant James V. Quintigliano and operated by the defendant Constance M. Catania. An affidavit submitted by Dr. Michael Brooks, who examined that plaintiff at the defendants’ request, states that his "range of motion of the cervical spine was approximately 75% of normal” and "his motor power is perhaps less than 50% of normal”. Whether those limitations constitute serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Swenning v Wankel, 140 AD2d 428). Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff John E. Baker, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered September 15, 1988, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The plaintiff John E. Baker, Jr., was injured when an automobile he was operating was struck by an automobile owned by the defendant James V. Quintigliano and operated by the defendant Constance M. Catania. An affidavit submitted by Dr. Michael Brooks, who examined that plaintiff at the defendants’ request, states that his "range of motion of the cervical spine was approximately 75% of normal” and "his motor power is perhaps less than 50% of normal”. Whether those limitations constitute serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Swenning v Wankel, 140 AD2d 428). Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Baker v. Catania, 151 A.D.2d 629, 542 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

151 A.D.2d 629 (Baker v. Catania) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related