Ventura v. Moritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ventura v. Moritz

255 A.D.2d 506, 680 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12661

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 506 (Ventura v. Moritz) 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

Ventura v. Moritz, 255 A.D.2d 506, 680 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated December 9, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff met his burden, in opposition to the defendant’s motion, by submitting sufficient evidence creating a triable issue of fact with regard to his claim that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff submitted a report and sworn affidavit of his chiropractor who stated that, upon examination, he determined that the plaintiff sustained a partial permanent disability in his cervical spine and some loss of range of motion, and quantified those limitations. This evidence was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact with regard to the plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained a serious injury (see, Washington v Mercy Home For Children, 232 AD2d 549; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519; Cesar v Felix, 181 AD2d 852; Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated December 9, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff met his burden, in opposition to the defendant’s motion, by submitting sufficient evidence creating a triable issue of fact with regard to his claim that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff submitted a report and sworn affidavit of his chiropractor who stated that, upon examination, he determined that the plaintiff sustained a partial permanent disability in his cervical spine and some loss of range of motion, and quantified those limitations. This evidence was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact with regard to the plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained a serious injury (see, Washington v Mercy Home For Children, 232 AD2d 549; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519; Cesar v Felix, 181 AD2d 852; Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 506, 680 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ventura-v-moritz-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack