Loiacano v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loiacano v. Lawrence

214 A.D.2d 704, 625 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517

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

DecidedApril 24, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 704 (Loiacano v. Lawrence) 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

Loiacano v. Lawrence, 214 A.D.2d 704, 625 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Robert Lawrence, Thriftway Leasing Co., and Control Services of Greater New York appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), dated October 5, 1993, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellants.

The appellants’ submissions made out a prima facie case that the respondent Salvatore Loiacano had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of chiropractor James S. Kaufman, submitted by the respondents, was deficient insofar as it failed to indicate that [705]*705the opinion expressed therein was based upon a recent medical examination (see, Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 Robert Lawrence, Thriftway Leasing Co., and Control Services of Greater New York appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), dated October 5, 1993, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellants.

The appellants’ submissions made out a prima facie case that the respondent Salvatore Loiacano had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of chiropractor James S. Kaufman, submitted by the respondents, was deficient insofar as it failed to indicate that [705]*705the opinion expressed therein was based upon a recent medical examination (see, Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 704, 625 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loiacano-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack