Murtha v. Kalhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murtha v. Kalhorn

237 A.D.2d 496, 656 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2880

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 496 (Murtha v. Kalhorn) 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

Murtha v. Kalhorn, 237 A.D.2d 496, 656 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated June 12, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiff met his burden of demonstrating the existence of factual issues with respect to whether he suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical reports from the plaintiff’s treating physicians and the more recent report submitted by the plaintiff’s treating [497]*497chiropractor present objective quantified evidence of the extent or degree of limitation with respect to the use of the plaintiff s dorso-lumbar spine and the duration of the limitation (see, Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635; Swenning v Wankel, 140 AD2d 428). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, 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, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated June 12, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiff met his burden of demonstrating the existence of factual issues with respect to whether he suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical reports from the plaintiff’s treating physicians and the more recent report submitted by the plaintiff’s treating [497]*497chiropractor present objective quantified evidence of the extent or degree of limitation with respect to the use of the plaintiff s dorso-lumbar spine and the duration of the limitation (see, Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635; Swenning v Wankel, 140 AD2d 428). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 496, 656 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murtha-v-kalhorn-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack