Loesburg v. Jovanovic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loesburg v. Jovanovic

264 A.D.2d 301, 694 N.Y.S.2d 362

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

DecidedAugust 5, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 301 (Loesburg v. Jovanovic) 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

Loesburg v. Jovanovic, 264 A.D.2d 301, 694 N.Y.S.2d 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Amended Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered April 30, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the respective motion and cross-motion of defendants Matea and Rizzo for summary judgment and dismissed the first and third causes of action in Action No. 4, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the motion and cross-motion, reinstating those causes of action, and remanding the matter for further proceedings, and as so modified, the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

The reports of the orthopedic and pulmonary examinations of plaintiff, conducted three and a half years after the subject automobile accident and addressed to the permanency of plaintiffs injuries, are insufficient to warrant the grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s claim that he suffered a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), in that, as a result of his non-permanent injuries, he was prevented from substantially performing his occupation as a self-employed limousine driver for 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident. Inasmuch as defendants have not sustained their burden of proof as movants for summary judgment, plaintiff’s failure to submit sworn competent, admissible, material evidence in opposition is not dispositive (compare, McLoyrd v Pennypacker, 178 AD2d 227, lv denied 79 NY2d 754). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Amended Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered April 30, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the respective motion and cross-motion of defendants Matea and Rizzo for summary judgment and dismissed the first and third causes of action in Action No. 4, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the motion and cross-motion, reinstating those causes of action, and remanding the matter for further proceedings, and as so modified, the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

The reports of the orthopedic and pulmonary examinations of plaintiff, conducted three and a half years after the subject automobile accident and addressed to the permanency of plaintiffs injuries, are insufficient to warrant the grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s claim that he suffered a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), in that, as a result of his non-permanent injuries, he was prevented from substantially performing his occupation as a self-employed limousine driver for 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident. Inasmuch as defendants have not sustained their burden of proof as movants for summary judgment, plaintiff’s failure to submit sworn competent, admissible, material evidence in opposition is not dispositive (compare, McLoyrd v Pennypacker, 178 AD2d 227, lv denied 79 NY2d 754). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 301, 694 N.Y.S.2d 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loesburg-v-jovanovic-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack