Pratt v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pratt v. Wright

239 A.D.2d 329, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4601

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 329 (Pratt v. Wright) 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

Pratt v. Wright, 239 A.D.2d 329, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated February 2, 1996, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion, consisting of Dr. Kathleen Watson’s affidavit, raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the plaintiff suffered a "significant limitation” and thus sustained a serious injury, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, 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, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated February 2, 1996, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion, consisting of Dr. Kathleen Watson’s affidavit, raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the plaintiff suffered a "significant limitation” and thus sustained a serious injury, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 329, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-wright-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack