Pulos v. Schait

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pulos v. Schait

302 A.D.2d 441, 754 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 441 (Pulos v. Schait) 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

Pulos v. Schait, 302 A.D.2d 441, 754 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered May 24, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from the radiologist who supervised magnetic resonance imaging testing which revealed that he has a herniated disc in the lumbosacral spine. Also, he submitted an affirmed report of an osteopathic physician specifying the decreased range of motion in his lumbar spine, noting findings of muscle spasm, and stating that his injuries are permanent and causally related to the motor vehicle accident in which he was injured. The physician’s opinion, supported by objective evidence, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, 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, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered May 24, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from the radiologist who supervised magnetic resonance imaging testing which revealed that he has a herniated disc in the lumbosacral spine. Also, he submitted an affirmed report of an osteopathic physician specifying the decreased range of motion in his lumbar spine, noting findings of muscle spasm, and stating that his injuries are permanent and causally related to the motor vehicle accident in which he was injured. The physician’s opinion, supported by objective evidence, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 441, 754 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulos-v-schait-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack