Mustello v. Szczepanski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mustello v. Szczepanski

245 A.D.2d 553, 667 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13373

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 553 (Mustello v. Szczepanski) 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

Mustello v. Szczepanski, 245 A.D.2d 553, 667 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated April 1, 1997, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff Bruce Mustello suffered a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the plaintiffs sustained their burden of demonstrating, through the submission of proof in admissible form, that the plaintiff Bruce C. Mustello sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 237). The plaintiffs’ submissions in support of their motion included a physician’s affirmation which revealed that the injured plaintiff had suffered an acute posttraumatic subluxation of the cervical spine, necessitating a surgical fusion that had left his head and neck “virtually frozen in the neutral position”. This evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff suffered a sig[554]*554nificant limitation of use of a body function or system (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]); see also, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Huggins v Daniels, 237 AD2d 491; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515).

Furthermore, the affirmation of the defendant’s attorney, which suggested that the injured plaintiffs surgery was necessitated by a cogenital abnormality, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact to refute the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing that the surgery was required due to injuries Bruce C. Mustello suffered in the automobile accident (see, Akujuo v USA Truck, 227 AD2d 360, 361). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated April 1, 1997, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff Bruce Mustello suffered a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the plaintiffs sustained their burden of demonstrating, through the submission of proof in admissible form, that the plaintiff Bruce C. Mustello sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 237). The plaintiffs’ submissions in support of their motion included a physician’s affirmation which revealed that the injured plaintiff had suffered an acute posttraumatic subluxation of the cervical spine, necessitating a surgical fusion that had left his head and neck “virtually frozen in the neutral position”. This evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff suffered a sig[554]*554nificant limitation of use of a body function or system (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]); see also, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Huggins v Daniels, 237 AD2d 491; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515).

Furthermore, the affirmation of the defendant’s attorney, which suggested that the injured plaintiffs surgery was necessitated by a cogenital abnormality, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact to refute the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing that the surgery was required due to injuries Bruce C. Mustello suffered in the automobile accident (see, Akujuo v USA Truck, 227 AD2d 360, 361). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 553, 667 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mustello-v-szczepanski-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack