Pasutto v. Hacker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pasutto v. Hacker

251 A.D.2d 478, 673 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6889

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated September 22, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Although the defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955), the affidavit of the plaintiff’s treating chiropractor stating, inter alia, that she suffers from objectively measured, specifically quantified restrictions of motion of her cervical and lumbosacral spine was sufficient to raise a triable question of fact as to whether she suffered a serious injury (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; Fitzpatrick v Spottiswood, 243 AD2d 676; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526; Wolfram v Vassilou, 239 AD2d 340; Carucci v Tzimopoulos, 238 AD2d 459; Grullon v Chang Ok Chu, 240 AD2d 367). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated September 22, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Although the defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955), the affidavit of the plaintiff’s treating chiropractor stating, inter alia, that she suffers from objectively measured, specifically quantified restrictions of motion of her cervical and lumbosacral spine was sufficient to raise a triable question of fact as to whether she suffered a serious injury (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; Fitzpatrick v Spottiswood, 243 AD2d 676; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526; Wolfram v Vassilou, 239 AD2d 340; Carucci v Tzimopoulos, 238 AD2d 459; Grullon v Chang Ok Chu, 240 AD2d 367). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Pasutto v. Hacker, 251 A.D.2d 478, 673 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 478 (Pasutto v. Hacker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related