Engles v. Claude

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Engles v. Claude

39 A.D.3d 357, 835 N.Y.S.2d 52

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

DecidedApril 19, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 357 (Engles v. Claude) 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

Engles v. Claude, 39 A.D.3d 357, 835 N.Y.S.2d 52 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered March 17, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

The affidavits of plaintiffs experts are not defective simply because the notary’s signature and seal appear on a separate page following the deponents’ respective signatures (cf. Collins v AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 AD2d 363 [1994]), and the positive MRI findings should have been considered, although unsworn, because they were reviewed by defendants’ expert orthopedist in reaching his opinion (see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 97 [2005]). Issues of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) are raised by her experts’ opinions that, as a result of the accident, she sustained a torn meniscus of the right knee that will require arthroscopic surgery (see Noriega v Sauerhaft, 5 AD3d 121 [2004]), tendinosis of the right shoulder (see Jones v Norwich City School Dist., 283 AD2d 809 [2001]), and has been unable to return to work as a traffic control officer because of an inability to stand for long periods of time or lift her right arm above the head (cf. De Araujo v Stem Cab Corp., 207 AD2d 823 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 813 [1995]). Plaintiffs other claimed injuries were not serious within the meaning of the statute. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered March 17, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

The affidavits of plaintiffs experts are not defective simply because the notary’s signature and seal appear on a separate page following the deponents’ respective signatures (cf. Collins v AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 AD2d 363 [1994]), and the positive MRI findings should have been considered, although unsworn, because they were reviewed by defendants’ expert orthopedist in reaching his opinion (see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 97 [2005]). Issues of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) are raised by her experts’ opinions that, as a result of the accident, she sustained a torn meniscus of the right knee that will require arthroscopic surgery (see Noriega v Sauerhaft, 5 AD3d 121 [2004]), tendinosis of the right shoulder (see Jones v Norwich City School Dist., 283 AD2d 809 [2001]), and has been unable to return to work as a traffic control officer because of an inability to stand for long periods of time or lift her right arm above the head (cf. De Araujo v Stem Cab Corp., 207 AD2d 823 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 813 [1995]). Plaintiffs other claimed injuries were not serious within the meaning of the statute. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 357, 835 N.Y.S.2d 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/engles-v-claude-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack