DaSilva v. Storz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DaSilva v. Storz

290 A.D.2d 288, 735 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 298

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 288 (DaSilva v. Storz) 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

DaSilva v. Storz, 290 A.D.2d 288, 735 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 27, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff was injured when a vehicle in which she was a passenger left the roadway and struck a telephone pole. Supreme Court, finding that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury for purposes of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

In opposing defendants’ motion, plaintiff’s experts opined that plaintiff suffered bulging and herniated discs causally related to the accident, that these injuries were permanent, and that plaintiff’s injuries resulted in a significant and quantified limitation in her range of motion. In view of this, Supreme Court could not conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiff had not suffered a serious injury (Lesser v Smart Cab Corp., 283 AD2d 273, 274; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526, 527). Accordingly, defendants’ motion should have been denied. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 27, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff was injured when a vehicle in which she was a passenger left the roadway and struck a telephone pole. Supreme Court, finding that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury for purposes of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

In opposing defendants’ motion, plaintiff’s experts opined that plaintiff suffered bulging and herniated discs causally related to the accident, that these injuries were permanent, and that plaintiff’s injuries resulted in a significant and quantified limitation in her range of motion. In view of this, Supreme Court could not conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiff had not suffered a serious injury (Lesser v Smart Cab Corp., 283 AD2d 273, 274; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526, 527). Accordingly, defendants’ motion should have been denied. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 288, 735 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dasilva-v-storz-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack