Cenat v. Cutler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cenat v. Cutler

251 A.D.2d 362, 672 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 362 (Cenat v. Cutler) 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

Cenat v. Cutler, 251 A.D.2d 362, 672 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.) dated May 19, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff was struck by the defendant’s motor vehicle on October 11, 1994, while walking across the street. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit sworn to April 29, 1997, by Dr. George Quaye which reported the results of his April 1997 examination of the plaintiff. The affidavit specified the degree to which the plaintiff’s movement was restricted in his cervical and lumbosacral spine, and that the restrictions would last indefinitely. The affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see also, Pareti v Giglietta, 221 AD2d 607). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Luciano, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.) dated May 19, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff was struck by the defendant’s motor vehicle on October 11, 1994, while walking across the street. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit sworn to April 29, 1997, by Dr. George Quaye which reported the results of his April 1997 examination of the plaintiff. The affidavit specified the degree to which the plaintiff’s movement was restricted in his cervical and lumbosacral spine, and that the restrictions would last indefinitely. The affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see also, Pareti v Giglietta, 221 AD2d 607). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 362, 672 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cenat-v-cutler-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack