Stadier v. Findley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stadier v. Findley

148 A.D.2d 600, 539 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3886

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 600 (Stadier v. Findley) 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

Stadier v. Findley, 148 A.D.2d 600, 539 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hand, J.), dated February 16, 1988, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, her deposition testimony to the effect that she suffers intermittent pain in the shoulder and neck as a result of the accident, in conjunction with a previous medical diagnosis of "cervical radiculitis”, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of serious injury which requires a showing that she suffered permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Popp v Kremer, 124 AD2d 720; cf., Mooney v Ovitt, 100 AD2d 702). Thus, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hand, J.), dated February 16, 1988, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, her deposition testimony to the effect that she suffers intermittent pain in the shoulder and neck as a result of the accident, in conjunction with a previous medical diagnosis of "cervical radiculitis”, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of serious injury which requires a showing that she suffered permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Popp v Kremer, 124 AD2d 720; cf., Mooney v Ovitt, 100 AD2d 702). Thus, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 600, 539 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stadier-v-findley-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack