Sepulveda v. Reyes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sepulveda v. Reyes

19 A.D.3d 297, 797 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7170

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

DecidedJune 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 297 (Sepulveda v. Reyes) 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

Sepulveda v. Reyes, 19 A.D.3d 297, 797 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered September 17, 2003, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evaluation by plaintiffs’ treating physician, Dr. Etkind, was based on his own examination and objective medical evidence, including MRIs (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]), and concluded with the opinion that the injuries were both related to the accident and permanent. This raises issues of fact as to whether these plaintiffs sustained “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). There is sufficient explanation in the record for the alleged gap of over three years between the discontinuance of plaintiffs’ treatment and their examination by Dr. Etkind. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered September 17, 2003, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evaluation by plaintiffs’ treating physician, Dr. Etkind, was based on his own examination and objective medical evidence, including MRIs (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]), and concluded with the opinion that the injuries were both related to the accident and permanent. This raises issues of fact as to whether these plaintiffs sustained “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). There is sufficient explanation in the record for the alleged gap of over three years between the discontinuance of plaintiffs’ treatment and their examination by Dr. Etkind. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 297, 797 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sepulveda-v-reyes-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack