Fasulo v. Lukach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fasulo v. Lukach

239 A.D.2d 462, 658 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379

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

DecidedMay 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 462 (Fasulo v. Lukach) 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

Fasulo v. Lukach, 239 A.D.2d 462, 658 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated September 4, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff did not sustain any serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the plaintiff proffered evidence which failed to demonstrate a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member”, or a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system”. The affirmation of Dr. Sudha Patel fails to specify any limitation in the range of motion of the plaintiff’s cervical spine (see, Wilkins v Cameron, 214 AD2d 557; Lichtman-Williams v Desmond, 202 AD2d 646; TippingCestari v Kilkenny, 174 AD2d 663). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated September 4, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff did not sustain any serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the plaintiff proffered evidence which failed to demonstrate a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member”, or a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system”. The affirmation of Dr. Sudha Patel fails to specify any limitation in the range of motion of the plaintiff’s cervical spine (see, Wilkins v Cameron, 214 AD2d 557; Lichtman-Williams v Desmond, 202 AD2d 646; TippingCestari v Kilkenny, 174 AD2d 663). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 462, 658 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fasulo-v-lukach-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack