Soogaree v. Factor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soogaree v. Factor

248 A.D.2d 704, 670 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3446

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 704 (Soogaree v. Factor) 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

Soogaree v. Factor, 248 A.D.2d 704, 670 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated May 9, 1997, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment. In opposition thereto, the plaintiff presented competent medical evidence in admissible form that she suffered “a traumatic rupture of the intervertebral discs in the cervical spine” as a result of the underlying accident, that such ruptures cause “symptoms and physical findings of radiculitis in the C-7 distribution”, and that this condition is permanent. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury (see, Puma v Player, 233 AD2d 308; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated May 9, 1997, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment. In opposition thereto, the plaintiff presented competent medical evidence in admissible form that she suffered “a traumatic rupture of the intervertebral discs in the cervical spine” as a result of the underlying accident, that such ruptures cause “symptoms and physical findings of radiculitis in the C-7 distribution”, and that this condition is permanent. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury (see, Puma v Player, 233 AD2d 308; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 704, 670 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soogaree-v-factor-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack