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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 19, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

239 A.D.2d 462 (Fasulo v. Lukach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related