Lefkowitz v. Salas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lefkowitz v. Salas

266 A.D.2d 356, 698 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11540

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 29, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There are issues of fact as to whether either of the plaintiffs [357] sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavits of the plaintiffs’ doctor submitted in opposition to the motion quantified limitations of motion to the cervical spine regions of both plaintiffs and set forth the duration of such limitations. Such evidence was sufficient to establish an issue of fact as to whether either plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see, Duarte v Ester, 247 AD2d 356; Grullon v Chang Ok Chu, 240 AD2d 367; Huggins v Daniels, 237 AD2d 491; Washington v Mercy Home For Children, 232 AD2d 549). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 29, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There are issues of fact as to whether either of the plaintiffs [357] sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavits of the plaintiffs’ doctor submitted in opposition to the motion quantified limitations of motion to the cervical spine regions of both plaintiffs and set forth the duration of such limitations. Such evidence was sufficient to establish an issue of fact as to whether either plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see, Duarte v Ester, 247 AD2d 356; Grullon v Chang Ok Chu, 240 AD2d 367; Huggins v Daniels, 237 AD2d 491; Washington v Mercy Home For Children, 232 AD2d 549). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Lefkowitz v. Salas, 266 A.D.2d 356, 698 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

266 A.D.2d 356 (Lefkowitz v. Salas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related