Bieman v. Thurn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bieman v. Thurn

295 A.D.2d 970, 743 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6305

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 970 (Bieman v. Thurn) 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

Bieman v. Thurn, 295 A.D.2d 970, 743 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from part of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered December 11, 2001, that denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of plaintiff’s expert raised an issue of fact whether she sustained a right brachial plexopathy. “It is well established that ‘conflicting expert opinions may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment’ ” (Corbett v County of Onondaga, [971]*971291 AD2d 886, 887, quoting Williams v Lucianatelli, 259 AD2d 1003, 1003). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from part of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered December 11, 2001, that denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of plaintiff’s expert raised an issue of fact whether she sustained a right brachial plexopathy. “It is well established that ‘conflicting expert opinions may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment’ ” (Corbett v County of Onondaga, [971]*971291 AD2d 886, 887, quoting Williams v Lucianatelli, 259 AD2d 1003, 1003). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 970, 743 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bieman-v-thurn-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack