Martin v. Pietrzak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Pietrzak

273 A.D.2d 361, 709 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7061

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

DecidedJune 19, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 361 (Martin v. Pietrzak) 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

Martin v. Pietrzak, 273 A.D.2d 361, 709 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, Jr., J.), entered May 18, 1999, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Through the testimony of her treating chiropractor, the injured plaintiff, Regina Martin (hereinafter the plaintiff), presented evidence that she suffered from a “vertebral subluxation complex” in her cervical spine as a result of injuries sustained in the accident in question. The plaintiff’s injuries allegedly resulted in permanent significant range of motion limitations which were objectively measured using an arthroidal protractor. Under these circumstances, a question of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Spain v New York City Tr. Auth., 265 AD2d 319; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408; Rut v Grigonis, 214 AD2d 721; [362]*362Greenman v Poll, 197 AD2d 502). The trial court therefore erred in granting the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, Jr., J.), entered May 18, 1999, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Through the testimony of her treating chiropractor, the injured plaintiff, Regina Martin (hereinafter the plaintiff), presented evidence that she suffered from a “vertebral subluxation complex” in her cervical spine as a result of injuries sustained in the accident in question. The plaintiff’s injuries allegedly resulted in permanent significant range of motion limitations which were objectively measured using an arthroidal protractor. Under these circumstances, a question of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Spain v New York City Tr. Auth., 265 AD2d 319; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408; Rut v Grigonis, 214 AD2d 721; [362]*362Greenman v Poll, 197 AD2d 502). The trial court therefore erred in granting the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 361, 709 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-pietrzak-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack