Roper v. Con Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roper v. Con Edison Co.

282 A.D.2d 593, 722 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3828

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 593 (Roper v. Con Edison Co.) 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

Roper v. Con Edison Co., 282 A.D.2d 593, 722 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), entered January 26, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court erred in the manner in which it permitted the plaintiffs orthopedist to testify concerning the plaintiffs quantified restrictions in the range of motion of the lumbar and cervical portions of his spine. Since the testimony was crucial in determining whether the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), a new trial is warranted (see, Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723; Erosa v Rinaldi, 270 AD2d 384; Nuzzo v Castellano, 254 AD2d 265; Schwartz v Gerson, 246 AD2d 589). Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), entered January 26, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court erred in the manner in which it permitted the plaintiffs orthopedist to testify concerning the plaintiffs quantified restrictions in the range of motion of the lumbar and cervical portions of his spine. Since the testimony was crucial in determining whether the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), a new trial is warranted (see, Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723; Erosa v Rinaldi, 270 AD2d 384; Nuzzo v Castellano, 254 AD2d 265; Schwartz v Gerson, 246 AD2d 589). Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 593, 722 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roper-v-con-edison-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack