Sciarrino v. Ambrus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sciarrino v. Ambrus

58 A.D.2d 741, 395 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12867

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

DecidedJune 3, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 741 (Sciarrino v. Ambrus) 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

Sciarrino v. Ambrus, 58 A.D.2d 741, 395 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: The expenses of diathermy treatment may not be considered in computing the $500 threshold requirement for a "serious injury” under section 671 (subd 4, par [b]) of the Insurance Law (Geblein v Arida, 55 AD2d 1048; Sanders v Rickard, 51 AD2d 260; see Colenzo v Kernan, 49 AD2d 809). " 'Serious Injury’ ” is defined, under paragraph (a) of subdivision 4 of the same section as a personal injury which results, inter alia, in a "permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system”. The sprains and contusions suffered by plaintiff-respondent, however, as evidenced by his own doctor’s reports contained in the record do not establish any "permanent” loss. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court —partial summary judgment.)

Present — Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: The expenses of diathermy treatment may not be considered in computing the $500 threshold requirement for a "serious injury” under section 671 (subd 4, par [b]) of the Insurance Law (Geblein v Arida, 55 AD2d 1048; Sanders v Rickard, 51 AD2d 260; see Colenzo v Kernan, 49 AD2d 809). " 'Serious Injury’ ” is defined, under paragraph (a) of subdivision 4 of the same section as a personal injury which results, inter alia, in a "permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system”. The sprains and contusions suffered by plaintiff-respondent, however, as evidenced by his own doctor’s reports contained in the record do not establish any "permanent” loss. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court —partial summary judgment.)

Present — Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 741, 395 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sciarrino-v-ambrus-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack