Pareti v. Giglietta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pareti v. Giglietta

221 A.D.2d 607, 634 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12452

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 607 (Pareti v. Giglietta) 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

Pareti v. Giglietta, 221 A.D.2d 607, 634 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated August 19, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendants Patricia J. Smolenski and Marian E. Smolenski for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them, based on the plaintiffs’ failure to establish serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Patricia J. Smolenski and Marian E. Smolenski.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the injured plaintiff, Maryann Pareti submitted an affirmation dated July 20, 1994, prepared by Dr. Donald I. Goldman which was based on an examination of the injured plaintiff he had performed one week earlier. The affirmation indicated that as a result of the accident, the injured plaintiff had a 20% restriction of motion of her cervical spine and that the injury to the cervical spine "should be considered permanent”. The affirmation was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained "significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (cf., Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated August 19, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendants Patricia J. Smolenski and Marian E. Smolenski for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them, based on the plaintiffs’ failure to establish serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Patricia J. Smolenski and Marian E. Smolenski.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the injured plaintiff, Maryann Pareti submitted an affirmation dated July 20, 1994, prepared by Dr. Donald I. Goldman which was based on an examination of the injured plaintiff he had performed one week earlier. The affirmation indicated that as a result of the accident, the injured plaintiff had a 20% restriction of motion of her cervical spine and that the injury to the cervical spine "should be considered permanent”. The affirmation was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained "significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (cf., Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 607, 634 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pareti-v-giglietta-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack