Outcalt v. Wang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Outcalt v. Wang

269 A.D.2d 435, 702 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1410

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 435 (Outcalt v. Wang) 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

Outcalt v. Wang, 269 A.D.2d 435, 702 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated July 8, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence in the form of a physician’s affirmation to create a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered a significant limitation of use of a body function or system pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Moreno v Delcid, 262 AD2d 464; Meyer v Gallardo, 260 AD2d [436]*436556; Lombardi v Columbo, 259 AD2d 524). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated July 8, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence in the form of a physician’s affirmation to create a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered a significant limitation of use of a body function or system pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Moreno v Delcid, 262 AD2d 464; Meyer v Gallardo, 260 AD2d [436]*436556; Lombardi v Columbo, 259 AD2d 524). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 435, 702 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/outcalt-v-wang-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack