Blakeslee v. Nielsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blakeslee v. Nielsen

85 A.D.2d 569, 445 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16363

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 569 (Blakeslee v. Nielsen) 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

Blakeslee v. Nielsen, 85 A.D.2d 569, 445 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bloustein, J.), entered Septem[570]*570ber 16, 1980, in favor of defendants, upon a verdict deciding that plaintiff failed to meet the threshold requirements of the no-fault insurance law (Insurance Law, § 670 et seq.), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs to abide the event, and the matter remanded for a new trial. The trial court erred-when it excluded plaintiff’s proof as to both the necessity for and the fair and reasonable value of various doctors’ services; compelled a redaction of the treating physician’s bill, thereby limiting its amount; and refused to permit the jury to consider the need for future medical expenses. By so doing, the court improperly removed from the jury’s consideration the issue of whether plaintiff met the $500 medical expense threshold alternative under former section 671 (subd 4, par [b]) of the Insurance Law. Moreover, the court unduly restricted the jury’s consideration of the other threshold issue, whether plaintiff sustained a “serious injury.” It should have charged, as requested, that to constitute a serious injury under former section 671 (subd 4, par [a]), there need not be a permanent total loss of use of a body organ or function. (See Adamek v Dale Cab Corp., NYLJ, Oct. 6, 1980, p 14, col 5.) These errors mandate reversal and a new trial. Concur — Murphy, P.J., Birns, Sullivan, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bloustein, J.), entered Septem[570]*570ber 16, 1980, in favor of defendants, upon a verdict deciding that plaintiff failed to meet the threshold requirements of the no-fault insurance law (Insurance Law, § 670 et seq.), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs to abide the event, and the matter remanded for a new trial. The trial court erred-when it excluded plaintiff’s proof as to both the necessity for and the fair and reasonable value of various doctors’ services; compelled a redaction of the treating physician’s bill, thereby limiting its amount; and refused to permit the jury to consider the need for future medical expenses. By so doing, the court improperly removed from the jury’s consideration the issue of whether plaintiff met the $500 medical expense threshold alternative under former section 671 (subd 4, par [b]) of the Insurance Law. Moreover, the court unduly restricted the jury’s consideration of the other threshold issue, whether plaintiff sustained a “serious injury.” It should have charged, as requested, that to constitute a serious injury under former section 671 (subd 4, par [a]), there need not be a permanent total loss of use of a body organ or function. (See Adamek v Dale Cab Corp., NYLJ, Oct. 6, 1980, p 14, col 5.) These errors mandate reversal and a new trial. Concur — Murphy, P.J., Birns, Sullivan, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 569, 445 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blakeslee-v-nielsen-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack