Lazu v. Integral Truck Leasing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lazu v. Integral Truck Leasing

292 A.D.2d 306, 741 N.Y.S.2d 196, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3261

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 306 (Lazu v. Integral Truck Leasing) 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

Lazu v. Integral Truck Leasing, 292 A.D.2d 306, 741 N.Y.S.2d 196, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 25, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the motion court erred in concluding that defendants’ physicians’ affidavits, averring that plaintiff had not by reason of the complained of automobile accident sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), [307]*307were insufficient to sustain defendants’ initial burden as summary judgment movants (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 83-84), defendants’ motion was nonetheless properly denied in view of the responding affidavit of plaintiff’s treating chiropractor, based on his examinations of plaintiff and the purportedly objective diagnostic tests performed by him on plaintiff, stating that plaintiff, as a result of the accident, suffers from a permanent partial disability. The chiropractor’s sworn affidavit, which incorporated by reference two prior unsworn reports, is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious physical injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Stark v Amadio, 239 AD2d 569).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it to be unavailing. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Lemer and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 25, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the motion court erred in concluding that defendants’ physicians’ affidavits, averring that plaintiff had not by reason of the complained of automobile accident sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), [307]*307were insufficient to sustain defendants’ initial burden as summary judgment movants (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 83-84), defendants’ motion was nonetheless properly denied in view of the responding affidavit of plaintiff’s treating chiropractor, based on his examinations of plaintiff and the purportedly objective diagnostic tests performed by him on plaintiff, stating that plaintiff, as a result of the accident, suffers from a permanent partial disability. The chiropractor’s sworn affidavit, which incorporated by reference two prior unsworn reports, is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious physical injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Stark v Amadio, 239 AD2d 569).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it to be unavailing. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Lemer and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 306, 741 N.Y.S.2d 196, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazu-v-integral-truck-leasing-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack