Bugow v. Jackowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bugow v. Jackowski

6 A.D.3d 1179, 775 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161

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

DecidedApril 30, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 1179 (Bugow v. Jackowski) 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

Bugow v. Jackowski, 6 A.D.3d 1179, 775 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John V Centra, J.), [1180]*1180entered February 13, 2003. The order denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a personal injury action.

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 defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant James E. Jackowski, Jr. and owned by defendant Erie Materials, Inc. Although defendants met their initial burden on the motion, we conclude that the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert raises an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). “It is well established that ‘conflicting expert opinions may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment’ ” (Pittman v Rickard, 295 AD2d 1003, 1004 [2002], quoting Williams v Lucianatelli, 259 AD2d 1003, 1003 [1999]). Present—Green, J.P, Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John V Centra, J.), [1180]*1180entered February 13, 2003. The order denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a personal injury action.

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 defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant James E. Jackowski, Jr. and owned by defendant Erie Materials, Inc. Although defendants met their initial burden on the motion, we conclude that the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert raises an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). “It is well established that ‘conflicting expert opinions may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment’ ” (Pittman v Rickard, 295 AD2d 1003, 1004 [2002], quoting Williams v Lucianatelli, 259 AD2d 1003, 1003 [1999]). Present—Green, J.P, Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 1179, 775 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bugow-v-jackowski-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack