Garcia v. Arrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Arrington

282 A.D.2d 268, 722 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559

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

DecidedApril 12, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 268 (Garcia v. Arrington) 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

Garcia v. Arrington, 282 A.D.2d 268, 722 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered December 13, 1999, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ proof in opposition to this motion, which set forth specific findings regarding the existence and extent of plaintiffs’ spinal range of motion limitations, constituted objective evi[269]*269dence that plaintiffs had sustained serious injuries and, as such, were sufficient to raise a factual question respecting the seriousness of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries warranting denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Adetunji v U-Haul Co., 250 AD2d 483; DiLeo v Blumberg, 250 AD2d 364, 365; O’Sullivan v Atrium Bus Co., 246 AD2d 418,419). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered December 13, 1999, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ proof in opposition to this motion, which set forth specific findings regarding the existence and extent of plaintiffs’ spinal range of motion limitations, constituted objective evi[269]*269dence that plaintiffs had sustained serious injuries and, as such, were sufficient to raise a factual question respecting the seriousness of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries warranting denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Adetunji v U-Haul Co., 250 AD2d 483; DiLeo v Blumberg, 250 AD2d 364, 365; O’Sullivan v Atrium Bus Co., 246 AD2d 418,419). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 268, 722 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-arrington-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack