Orsenigo v. Burnstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orsenigo v. Burnstein

202 A.D.2d 561, 610 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2663

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 561 (Orsenigo v. Burnstein) 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

Orsenigo v. Burnstein, 202 A.D.2d 561, 610 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated September 24, 1991, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to establish that the plaintiff had suffered a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, we find that the affirmation submitted by the plaintiff’s treating physician was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury. In that affirmation, the physician indicated that the plaintiff had suffered a permanent disc dessication, which, based on the plaintiff’s history, was causally related to the accident. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated September 24, 1991, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to establish that the plaintiff had suffered a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, we find that the affirmation submitted by the plaintiff’s treating physician was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury. In that affirmation, the physician indicated that the plaintiff had suffered a permanent disc dessication, which, based on the plaintiff’s history, was causally related to the accident. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 561, 610 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orsenigo-v-burnstein-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack