Tuico v. Maher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tuico v. Maher

52 A.D.3d 201, 859 N.Y.S.2d 77

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

DecidedJune 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 201 (Tuico v. Maher) 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

Tuico v. Maher, 52 A.D.3d 201, 859 N.Y.S.2d 77 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 5, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Although defendants made a sufficient prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment on the question of “serious injury” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), the expert affirmations in response designated a numeric percentage for each plaintiffs loss of range of motion, and an objective basis for comparing those limitations “to the normal function, purpose and use of the affected body organ, member, function or system” (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]). Plaintiffs’ experts specifically quantified the range-of-motion limits (see Desulme v Stanya, 12 AD3d 557 [2004]) and causally related them to the accident, sufficient to defeat summary dismissal. Concur— Lippman, PJ., Saxe, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 5, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Although defendants made a sufficient prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment on the question of “serious injury” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), the expert affirmations in response designated a numeric percentage for each plaintiffs loss of range of motion, and an objective basis for comparing those limitations “to the normal function, purpose and use of the affected body organ, member, function or system” (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]). Plaintiffs’ experts specifically quantified the range-of-motion limits (see Desulme v Stanya, 12 AD3d 557 [2004]) and causally related them to the accident, sufficient to defeat summary dismissal. Concur— Lippman, PJ., Saxe, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 201, 859 N.Y.S.2d 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuico-v-maher-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack