Patterson v. Rosner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patterson v. Rosner

240 A.D.2d 555, 659 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6883

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

DecidedJune 16, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 555 (Patterson v. Rosner) 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

Patterson v. Rosner, 240 A.D.2d 555, 659 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated November 12, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The medical evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her motion for summary judgment made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). However, the affidavit prepared by Dr. Jay Eneman, submitted in opposition to the motion, provided objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation of use of the plaintiff’s right foot and thus raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury (see, Beckett v Conte, [556]*556176 AD2d 774). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated November 12, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The medical evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her motion for summary judgment made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). However, the affidavit prepared by Dr. Jay Eneman, submitted in opposition to the motion, provided objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation of use of the plaintiff’s right foot and thus raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury (see, Beckett v Conte, [556]*556176 AD2d 774). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 555, 659 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-rosner-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack