Servones v.Toribio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Servones v.Toribio

20 A.D.3d 330, 798 N.Y.S.2d 58

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

DecidedJuly 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 20 A.D.3d 330 (Servones v.Toribio) 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

Servones v.Toribio, 20 A.D.3d 330, 798 N.Y.S.2d 58 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered July 16, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Cruz’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that neither plaintiff suffered serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously modified, on the law, the complaint reinstated with respect to plaintiff Joseph’s claim against Cruz, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Cruz’s examining physicians found that plaintiff Janot Joseph (identified in the record as Joseph Gavot) continued to have significant restrictions in motion, evidenced by range-of-motion calculations, approximately two years after the accident. These findings alone raise an issue of fact as to whether Joseph suffered a significant limitation of a body function or system, and refute the physicians’ statements that Joseph’s examinations revealed no significant limitation or disability (McDowall v Abreu, 11 AD3d 590 [2004]; see also Thorner v Latture, 11 AD3d 448 [2004]).

Defendant Cruz did establish a prima facie showing of no serious injury with respect to plaintiff Servones by submitting admissible proof that Servones had full range of motion in his cervical spine, despite the existence of an MRI report which showed herniated and bulging discs (see Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered July 16, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Cruz’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that neither plaintiff suffered serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously modified, on the law, the complaint reinstated with respect to plaintiff Joseph’s claim against Cruz, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Cruz’s examining physicians found that plaintiff Janot Joseph (identified in the record as Joseph Gavot) continued to have significant restrictions in motion, evidenced by range-of-motion calculations, approximately two years after the accident. These findings alone raise an issue of fact as to whether Joseph suffered a significant limitation of a body function or system, and refute the physicians’ statements that Joseph’s examinations revealed no significant limitation or disability (McDowall v Abreu, 11 AD3d 590 [2004]; see also Thorner v Latture, 11 AD3d 448 [2004]).

Defendant Cruz did establish a prima facie showing of no serious injury with respect to plaintiff Servones by submitting admissible proof that Servones had full range of motion in his cervical spine, despite the existence of an MRI report which showed herniated and bulging discs (see Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 330, 798 N.Y.S.2d 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/servones-vtoribio-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack