Rodriguez v. Chinatomby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Chinatomby

208 A.D.2d 605, 618 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9618

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 605 (Rodriguez v. Chinatomby) 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

Rodriguez v. Chinatomby, 208 A.D.2d 605, 618 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated April 5, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted evidence in admissible form that because of the injuries he sustained he was unable to return to his job for more than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following his automobile accident with the defendant. The plaintiff also submitted evidence that he was unable to stand for prolonged periods of time. Thus, this evidence raised a triable issue of fact whether he sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 in that he was prevented from performing substantially all of his usual and customary daily activities for the threshold period (cf., Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 238; Georgia v Ramautar, 180 AD2d 713; De Filippo v White, 101 AD2d 801). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman 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, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated April 5, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted evidence in admissible form that because of the injuries he sustained he was unable to return to his job for more than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following his automobile accident with the defendant. The plaintiff also submitted evidence that he was unable to stand for prolonged periods of time. Thus, this evidence raised a triable issue of fact whether he sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 in that he was prevented from performing substantially all of his usual and customary daily activities for the threshold period (cf., Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 238; Georgia v Ramautar, 180 AD2d 713; De Filippo v White, 101 AD2d 801). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 605, 618 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-chinatomby-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack