McLinden v. Schoeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McLinden v. Schoeck

261 A.D.2d 925, 689 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 925 (McLinden v. Schoeck) 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

McLinden v. Schoeck, 261 A.D.2d 925, 689 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Anne H. McLinden (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). From our review of the record, we conclude that the affidavits of the treating physician and chiropractor submitted by plaintiffs in opposition to defendant’s motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see, Marszalek v Brown, 247 AD2d 827; Hawkins v Forshee, 245 AD2d 1091; Denner v Mizgala, 245 AD2d 1069). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Scudder, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner and Callahan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Anne H. McLinden (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). From our review of the record, we conclude that the affidavits of the treating physician and chiropractor submitted by plaintiffs in opposition to defendant’s motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see, Marszalek v Brown, 247 AD2d 827; Hawkins v Forshee, 245 AD2d 1091; Denner v Mizgala, 245 AD2d 1069). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Scudder, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 925, 689 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclinden-v-schoeck-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack