Lombardi v. Hochfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lombardi v. Hochfeld

240 A.D.2d 711, 660 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7141

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

DecidedJune 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 711 (Lombardi v. Hochfeld) 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

Lombardi v. Hochfeld, 240 A.D.2d 711, 660 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7141 (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, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated October 3, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion pursu[712]*712ant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation prepared by a physician which was based, inter alia, on the examination he performed on the plaintiff approximately 17 months after the occurrence. The affirmation provided objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation in the plaintiff’s cervical spine and left shoulder and thus raised an issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether she sustained "a significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, 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, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated October 3, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion pursu[712]*712ant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation prepared by a physician which was based, inter alia, on the examination he performed on the plaintiff approximately 17 months after the occurrence. The affirmation provided objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation in the plaintiff’s cervical spine and left shoulder and thus raised an issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether she sustained "a significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 711, 660 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lombardi-v-hochfeld-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack