Roman v. O'Brien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roman v. O'Brien

305 A.D.2d 337, 759 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118

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

DecidedMay 29, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 337 (Roman v. O'Brien) 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

Roman v. O'Brien, 305 A.D.2d 337, 759 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about September 4, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Whether, as defendants contend, plaintiffs injuries existed [338]*338prior to the accident is an issue of fact raised by the affirmation of his treating physician, which, inter alia, opines on the basis of pre-accident medical records that plaintiff’s neck and back injuries were not preexisting and that a preexisting knee injury was aggravated by the accident. It does not avail defendants that the physicians’s affirmation refers to various unverified reports of other physicians (see Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438 [2003]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about September 4, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Whether, as defendants contend, plaintiffs injuries existed [338]*338prior to the accident is an issue of fact raised by the affirmation of his treating physician, which, inter alia, opines on the basis of pre-accident medical records that plaintiff’s neck and back injuries were not preexisting and that a preexisting knee injury was aggravated by the accident. It does not avail defendants that the physicians’s affirmation refers to various unverified reports of other physicians (see Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438 [2003]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 337, 759 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-obrien-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack