Grafmuller v. Malek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grafmuller v. Malek

297 A.D.2d 703, 747 N.Y.2d 392, 747 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8633

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 703 (Grafmuller v. Malek) 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

Grafmuller v. Malek, 297 A.D.2d 703, 747 N.Y.2d 392, 747 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court improperly determined that the plaintiffs proof was not in admissible form, and not based upon a recent examination.

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter or law, the plaintiff submitted sworn statements from chiropractors and a physician demonstrating the existence of factual issues with respect to whether she sustained a “serious injury” within the mean[704]*704ing of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Stark v Amadio, 239 AD2d 569). One of those chiropractors was still treating the plaintiff at the time the motion for summary judgment was made, “encompassing approximately 100 visits for testing and treatment.”

Accordingly, summary judgment should have been denied. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court improperly determined that the plaintiffs proof was not in admissible form, and not based upon a recent examination.

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter or law, the plaintiff submitted sworn statements from chiropractors and a physician demonstrating the existence of factual issues with respect to whether she sustained a “serious injury” within the mean[704]*704ing of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Stark v Amadio, 239 AD2d 569). One of those chiropractors was still treating the plaintiff at the time the motion for summary judgment was made, “encompassing approximately 100 visits for testing and treatment.”

Accordingly, summary judgment should have been denied. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 703, 747 N.Y.2d 392, 747 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grafmuller-v-malek-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack