Perez v. Einhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Einhorn

123 A.D.2d 752, 507 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60894

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 752 (Perez v. Einhorn) 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

Perez v. Einhorn, 123 A.D.2d 752, 507 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated May 27, 1985, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law former § 671 (4) (now § 5102 [d]). The plaintiff’s papers submitted in opposition to the motion, including an affidavit of his treating physician, indicating a limitation of his back movement to 70% of normal, were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and defeat the motion (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated May 27, 1985, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law former § 671 (4) (now § 5102 [d]). The plaintiff’s papers submitted in opposition to the motion, including an affidavit of his treating physician, indicating a limitation of his back movement to 70% of normal, were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and defeat the motion (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 752, 507 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-einhorn-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack