Soogrim v. Upgrade Contracting Corp.

8 A.D.3d 57, 777 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7837
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 8, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 57 (Soogrim v. Upgrade Contracting Corp.) 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
Soogrim v. Upgrade Contracting Corp., 8 A.D.3d 57, 777 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about July 17, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to plaintiff Belfield, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evaluation by the responding plaintiffs treating physician was based on such objective medical evidence as MRIs, x-rays and EMG results {see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]), and offered the opinion that the injuries were both related to the accident and permanent. This raises issues of fact as to whether this plaintiff sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Related

Lake v. Celen
27 Misc. 3d 284 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 A.D.3d 57, 777 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soogrim-v-upgrade-contracting-corp-nyappdiv-2004.