Weider v. Senebouthyrath

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weider v. Senebouthyrath

182 A.D.2d 1124

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1124 (Weider v. Senebouthyrath) 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

Weider v. Senebouthyrath, 182 A.D.2d 1124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this personal injury action, defendant appeals from so much of Supreme Court’s order as denied his motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs complaint. Defendant contends that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In our view, there is sufficient evidence in the record to raise triable issues of fact about the nature and extent of any brain damage allegedly sustained by plaintiff. Since a neuropsychologist may be permitted to testify as an expert witness at trial regarding a brain injury (see, Matter of Nichols v Colonial Beacon Oil Co., 284 App Div 581, 585), his affirmation is sufficient to raise an issue of fact. Any discrepancies between the opinions of the medical experts raise issues of credibility, which are for the jury to determine (Francis v Basic Metal, 144 AD2d 634, 635). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this personal injury action, defendant appeals from so much of Supreme Court’s order as denied his motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs complaint. Defendant contends that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In our view, there is sufficient evidence in the record to raise triable issues of fact about the nature and extent of any brain damage allegedly sustained by plaintiff. Since a neuropsychologist may be permitted to testify as an expert witness at trial regarding a brain injury (see, Matter of Nichols v Colonial Beacon Oil Co., 284 App Div 581, 585), his affirmation is sufficient to raise an issue of fact. Any discrepancies between the opinions of the medical experts raise issues of credibility, which are for the jury to determine (Francis v Basic Metal, 144 AD2d 634, 635). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weider-v-senebouthyrath-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack