Sabella v. McKain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sabella v. McKain

239 A.D.2d 333, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4593

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 333 (Sabella v. McKain) 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

Sabella v. McKain, 239 A.D.2d 333, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 18, 1996, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this personal injury action arising out of a two-vehicle accident, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). In doing so, she relied upon unsworn reports prepared by the injured plaintiff’s treating physicians and chiropractor. The defendant could rely solely upon such reports to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not sustain serious injury, and thus, that she was entitled to summary judgment (see, Pagano v Kings-bury, 182 AD2d 268, 271). However, in the instant case, one such report, by Dr. Eugene A. Ferrara, stated that the injured plaintiff suffered from specifically quantified, permanent decreases in rotation, extension, and flexion in both his cervical and lumbar spine regions. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff’s injuries were not serious (see, Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 18, 1996, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this personal injury action arising out of a two-vehicle accident, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). In doing so, she relied upon unsworn reports prepared by the injured plaintiff’s treating physicians and chiropractor. The defendant could rely solely upon such reports to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not sustain serious injury, and thus, that she was entitled to summary judgment (see, Pagano v Kings-bury, 182 AD2d 268, 271). However, in the instant case, one such report, by Dr. Eugene A. Ferrara, stated that the injured plaintiff suffered from specifically quantified, permanent decreases in rotation, extension, and flexion in both his cervical and lumbar spine regions. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff’s injuries were not serious (see, Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 333, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabella-v-mckain-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack