Jablonski v. Bolt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jablonski v. Bolt

213 A.D.2d 982, 624 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3763

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 982 (Jablonski v. Bolt) 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

Jablonski v. Bolt, 213 A.D.2d 982, 624 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Lori L. Jablonski (plaintiff) had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of Dr. Geraci, a specialist in spine and musculoskeletal disorders, who had treated plaintiff for two years. Dr. Geraci averred that plaintiff had suffered a permanent 50% loss of forward flexion and extension of the lumbar spine, a 25% loss in side-bending motions and a 25% loss of flexion and extension of the cervical spine. That evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury (see, Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635; Lazarre v Kopczynski, 160 AD2d 772). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Lori L. Jablonski (plaintiff) had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of Dr. Geraci, a specialist in spine and musculoskeletal disorders, who had treated plaintiff for two years. Dr. Geraci averred that plaintiff had suffered a permanent 50% loss of forward flexion and extension of the lumbar spine, a 25% loss in side-bending motions and a 25% loss of flexion and extension of the cervical spine. That evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury (see, Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635; Lazarre v Kopczynski, 160 AD2d 772). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 982, 624 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jablonski-v-bolt-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack