Shulman v. Papell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shulman v. Papell

273 A.D.2d 111, 710 N.Y.S.2d 527, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6596

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

DecidedJune 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 111 (Shulman v. Papell) 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

Shulman v. Papell, 273 A.D.2d 111, 710 N.Y.S.2d 527, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about September 2, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had not sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion was properly denied since there was competent objective medical evidence sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether plaintiff suffered significant or permanent injury to her lumbosacral spine and whether she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for at least 90 out of the 180 days following the accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Adetunji v U-Haul Co., 250 AD2d 483). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about September 2, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had not sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion was properly denied since there was competent objective medical evidence sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether plaintiff suffered significant or permanent injury to her lumbosacral spine and whether she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for at least 90 out of the 180 days following the accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Adetunji v U-Haul Co., 250 AD2d 483). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 111, 710 N.Y.S.2d 527, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shulman-v-papell-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack