Khodadadian v. Wolff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khodadadian v. Wolff

242 A.D.2d 681, 664 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9209

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 681 (Khodadadian v. Wolff) 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

Khodadadian v. Wolff, 242 A.D.2d 681, 664 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated August 8, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The physician’s affirmation and medical report submitted by [682]*682the defendant in support of his motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the plaintiff sustained a limitation in the range of motion in his cervical, dorsal, and lumbosacral spine which, under certain circumstances, may constitute a serious injury (see, Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635). Nevertheless, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the 1991 accident was a proximate cause of the claimed spinal injuries (see, Cacaccio v Martin, 235 AD2d 384; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated August 8, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The physician’s affirmation and medical report submitted by [682]*682the defendant in support of his motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the plaintiff sustained a limitation in the range of motion in his cervical, dorsal, and lumbosacral spine which, under certain circumstances, may constitute a serious injury (see, Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635). Nevertheless, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the 1991 accident was a proximate cause of the claimed spinal injuries (see, Cacaccio v Martin, 235 AD2d 384; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 681, 664 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khodadadian-v-wolff-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack