Spadola v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spadola v. Miller

243 A.D.2d 462, 665 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9353

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 462 (Spadola v. Miller) 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

Spadola v. Miller, 243 A.D.2d 462, 665 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 20, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff Sadowa Spadola sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiffs submitted a chiropractor’s affidavit stating that based upon objective testing, Sadowa Spadola sustained permanent injuries to his spine and muscular system as a direct result of the underlying motor vehicle accident. The chiropractor quantified the limitations in the rotation, extension, and flexion in the injured plaintiffs cervical, lumbar, and dorso-lumbar spine (see, Steuer v Di-Donna, 233 AD2d 494; Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 20, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff Sadowa Spadola sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiffs submitted a chiropractor’s affidavit stating that based upon objective testing, Sadowa Spadola sustained permanent injuries to his spine and muscular system as a direct result of the underlying motor vehicle accident. The chiropractor quantified the limitations in the rotation, extension, and flexion in the injured plaintiffs cervical, lumbar, and dorso-lumbar spine (see, Steuer v Di-Donna, 233 AD2d 494; Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 462, 665 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spadola-v-miller-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack