Camilo v. Forlini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camilo v. Forlini

304 A.D.2d 386, 756 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3875

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

DecidedApril 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 386 (Camilo v. Forlini) 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

Camilo v. Forlini, 304 A.D.2d 386, 756 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered May 31, 2002, which denied defendants’ motion and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s cross motion was properly denied in light of factual questions precluding summary adjudication of the threshold issue as to whether plaintiff sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Maldonado v DePalo, 277 AD2d 21, 22 [2000]). Plaintiff demonstrated a triable issue of fact with an affidavit that included her medical expert’s “designation of a numeric percentage of a plaintiff’s loss of range of motion” (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]). We have considered the remaining arguments of both sides for summary judgment and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered May 31, 2002, which denied defendants’ motion and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s cross motion was properly denied in light of factual questions precluding summary adjudication of the threshold issue as to whether plaintiff sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Maldonado v DePalo, 277 AD2d 21, 22 [2000]). Plaintiff demonstrated a triable issue of fact with an affidavit that included her medical expert’s “designation of a numeric percentage of a plaintiff’s loss of range of motion” (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]). We have considered the remaining arguments of both sides for summary judgment and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 386, 756 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camilo-v-forlini-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack