LoPinto v. Guzzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LoPinto v. Guzzo

274 A.D.2d 419, 711 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7703

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

DecidedJuly 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 419 (LoPinto v. Guzzo) 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

LoPinto v. Guzzo, 274 A.D.2d 419, 711 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated December 21, 1998, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant’s motion established a prima facie case for summary judgment in her favor. However, the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact with regard to his claim that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff submitted an affidavit by his chiropractor which stated that, based upon certain tests performed during his examination of the plaintiff, it was his opinion that the plaintiff had a significant limitation in the range of motion of his cervical spine/Notwithstanding the contrary opinions of the defendant’s examining physicians, that evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to the plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained a serious [420]*420injury (see, Rut v Grigonis, 214 AD2d 721). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated December 21, 1998, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant’s motion established a prima facie case for summary judgment in her favor. However, the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact with regard to his claim that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff submitted an affidavit by his chiropractor which stated that, based upon certain tests performed during his examination of the plaintiff, it was his opinion that the plaintiff had a significant limitation in the range of motion of his cervical spine/Notwithstanding the contrary opinions of the defendant’s examining physicians, that evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to the plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained a serious [420]*420injury (see, Rut v Grigonis, 214 AD2d 721). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 419, 711 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopinto-v-guzzo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack