Mangano v. Sherman
This text of 273 A.D.2d 836 (Mangano v. Sherman) 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.
Opinion
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Donna L. Mangano (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) in the motor vehicle accident at issue herein. Although defendants met their initial burden, plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of an orthopedic surgeon who had treated plaintiff for over 2V2 years following the accident. He opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff had suffered permanent limitations including, inter alia, a 20% to 30% loss of flexion, rotation and extension in her neck, a 20 degree loss of full elevation of the right shoulder, permanent winging of the right scapula with permanent nerve damage and palsy to the long thoracic nerve and a 20% loss of use of the right shoulder. That evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see, Rodriguez v Duggan, 266 AD2d 859; Nathanson v David, 244 AD2d 930; Jablonski v Bolt, 213 AD2d
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
273 A.D.2d 836, 709 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangano-v-sherman-nyappdiv-2000.