Mastromonica v. Conklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mastromonica v. Conklin

246 A.D.2d 581, 667 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 403

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 581 (Mastromonica v. Conklin) 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

Mastromonica v. Conklin, 246 A.D.2d 581, 667 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated December 19, 1996, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Patricia Mastromonica were not serious (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). The report prepared by Ms. Mastromonica’s treating orthopedist indicated a decreased range of motion of her neck and the report of her treating dentist revealed that she was limited in her ability to open her mouth. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated December 19, 1996, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Patricia Mastromonica were not serious (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). The report prepared by Ms. Mastromonica’s treating orthopedist indicated a decreased range of motion of her neck and the report of her treating dentist revealed that she was limited in her ability to open her mouth. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 581, 667 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mastromonica-v-conklin-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack