Cavallaro v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cavallaro v. Baker

187 A.D.2d 976, 590 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13992

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 976 (Cavallaro v. Baker) 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

Cavallaro v. Baker, 187 A.D.2d 976, 590 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

Order reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The opposing affidavits of plaintiff, her treating physician and medical expert were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1020; Spezia v De Marco, 173 AD2d 462, 463; Rotondi v Horning, 168 AD2d 944). The conflicting opinions of the medical experts raise issues of credibility which are for the jury to determine (see, Weider v Senebouthyrath, 182 AD2d 1124; Francis v Basic Metal, 144 AD2d 634, 635).

All concur, except Boomer, J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following Memorandum.

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

Order reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The opposing affidavits of plaintiff, her treating physician and medical expert were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1020; Spezia v De Marco, 173 AD2d 462, 463; Rotondi v Horning, 168 AD2d 944). The conflicting opinions of the medical experts raise issues of credibility which are for the jury to determine (see, Weider v Senebouthyrath, 182 AD2d 1124; Francis v Basic Metal, 144 AD2d 634, 635).

All concur, except Boomer, J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following Memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 976, 590 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavallaro-v-baker-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack