Weingart v. Varisano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weingart v. Varisano

205 A.D.2d 617, 614 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6204

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 13, 1994·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated September 16, 1992, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Ernest C. Chisena, is sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated September 16, 1992, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Ernest C. Chisena, is sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Weingart v. Varisano, 205 A.D.2d 617, 614 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

205 A.D.2d 617 (Weingart v. Varisano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related