Bryan v. Brancato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bryan v. Brancato

213 A.D.2d 577, 624 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3218

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 577 (Bryan v. Brancato) 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

Bryan v. Brancato, 213 A.D.2d 577, 624 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated November 8, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiffs met their burden, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by submitting sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact with regard to their claim that they sustained serious injuries (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs submitted affidavits of their examining physician, in which the physician stated that, based upon his examination, the plaintiffs had sustained permanent limitations in the range of motion of their spines. The physician stated the specific degrees of limitation suffered by each plaintiff. Those affidavits were sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Dufel v Green, 84 NY2d 795; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774; Morsellino v Frankel, 161 AD2d 748; Ottavio v Moore, 141 AD2d 806, 807). Accordingly, in the present case, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated November 8, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiffs met their burden, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by submitting sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact with regard to their claim that they sustained serious injuries (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs submitted affidavits of their examining physician, in which the physician stated that, based upon his examination, the plaintiffs had sustained permanent limitations in the range of motion of their spines. The physician stated the specific degrees of limitation suffered by each plaintiff. Those affidavits were sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Dufel v Green, 84 NY2d 795; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774; Morsellino v Frankel, 161 AD2d 748; Ottavio v Moore, 141 AD2d 806, 807). Accordingly, in the present case, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 577, 624 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryan-v-brancato-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack