Iacobazzo v. Asad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iacobazzo v. Asad

7 A.D.3d 367, 776 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6954

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

DecidedMay 18, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 367 (Iacobazzo v. Asad) 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

Iacobazzo v. Asad, 7 A.D.3d 367, 776 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered June 11, 2003, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is raised by his physician’s affidavit correlating plaintiffs “significant limitation of use of his lumbar spine” and inability to perform daily tasks to herniated discs and opining that plaintiffs condition was caused by the accident and is permanent (see Rice v Moses, 300 AD2d 213 [2002]). It does not avail defendants that the MRI reports to which plaintiffs physician referred are unsworn (see id.; Toledo v A.P.O.W. Auto Repair /Towing, 307 AD2d 233, 234 [2003]). We have considered and rejected defendants’ other arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered June 11, 2003, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is raised by his physician’s affidavit correlating plaintiffs “significant limitation of use of his lumbar spine” and inability to perform daily tasks to herniated discs and opining that plaintiffs condition was caused by the accident and is permanent (see Rice v Moses, 300 AD2d 213 [2002]). It does not avail defendants that the MRI reports to which plaintiffs physician referred are unsworn (see id.; Toledo v A.P.O.W. Auto Repair /Towing, 307 AD2d 233, 234 [2003]). We have considered and rejected defendants’ other arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 367, 776 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iacobazzo-v-asad-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack