Fitzpatrick v. Spottiswood

243 A.D.2d 676, 664 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10751
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 27, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 676 (Fitzpatrick v. Spottiswood) 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
Fitzpatrick v. Spottiswood, 243 A.D.2d 676, 664 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) the defendant Linda Spottiswood appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), [677]*677dated January 22, 1997, as granted the plaintiffs motion for renewal and, upon renewal, (a) vacated so much of a prior order of the same court, dated June 25, 1996, as had granted the defendant Spottiswood’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her and the codefendants’ cross claims and (b) denied her motion for summary judgment, and (2) the defendants Jessica C. Fernandez and Howard S. Lieberman separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the order dated January 22, 1997, as granted the plaintiffs motion for renewal and, upon renewal, (a) vacated so much of the order dated June 25, 1996, as had granted their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (b) denied their cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in treating the plaintiffs motion as one to renew (see, Oremland v Miller Minuteman Constr. Corp., 133 AD2d 816).

Moreover, the physician’s affidavit, which the plaintiff submitted upon renewal, provided objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation of movement of the plaintiffs cervical spine and its duration (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774), thus raising a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to the existence of a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tyler v. TT Leasing Corp.
265 A.D.2d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
McKinney v. Corby
261 A.D.2d 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Lombardi v. Columbo
259 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Pasutto v. Hacker
251 A.D.2d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 676, 664 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzpatrick-v-spottiswood-nyappdiv-1997.