Eng v. New Main Line Trading Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eng v. New Main Line Trading Corp.

249 A.D.2d 359, 670 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3986

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 359 (Eng v. New Main Line Trading Corp.) 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

Eng v. New Main Line Trading Corp., 249 A.D.2d 359, 670 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated July 23,1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits sworn to on May 20, 1997, by Dr. Andrew Brown which were based, inter alia, on examinations of the plaintiffs which he had performed approximately one month earlier, some three years after the occurrence of the accident. The affidavits specified the degree of restriction in the range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spines of the plaintiff Mary Eng, and the cervical spine of the plaintiff Eugene Eng. The affidavits were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs sustained a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Pareti v Giglietta, 221 AD2d 607, citing Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated July 23,1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits sworn to on May 20, 1997, by Dr. Andrew Brown which were based, inter alia, on examinations of the plaintiffs which he had performed approximately one month earlier, some three years after the occurrence of the accident. The affidavits specified the degree of restriction in the range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spines of the plaintiff Mary Eng, and the cervical spine of the plaintiff Eugene Eng. The affidavits were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs sustained a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Pareti v Giglietta, 221 AD2d 607, citing Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 359, 670 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eng-v-new-main-line-trading-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack