Bartolucci v. Nezaj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bartolucci v. Nezaj

209 A.D.2d 154, 617 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 154 (Bartolucci v. Nezaj) 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

Bartolucci v. Nezaj, 209 A.D.2d 154, 617 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 8, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order of the same court and Justice, dated December 14, 1993, which denied plaintiffs motion for leave to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held, as a matter of law, that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of plaintiffs treating physician supports neither plaintiff’s contention that her injuries involve a "significant limitation of use” nor "permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system”. The affidavit includes no finding whatsoever of any permanency in any injury to plaintiff, nor any opinion regarding the extent or degree of limitation of movement of the left shoulder or left knee (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 8, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order of the same court and Justice, dated December 14, 1993, which denied plaintiffs motion for leave to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held, as a matter of law, that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of plaintiffs treating physician supports neither plaintiff’s contention that her injuries involve a "significant limitation of use” nor "permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system”. The affidavit includes no finding whatsoever of any permanency in any injury to plaintiff, nor any opinion regarding the extent or degree of limitation of movement of the left shoulder or left knee (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 154, 617 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartolucci-v-nezaj-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack