Wierzbicki v. Mathew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wierzbicki v. Mathew

296 A.D.2d 400, 745 N.Y.S.2d 446, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7025

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 400 (Wierzbicki v. Mathew) 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

Wierzbicki v. Mathew, 296 A.D.2d 400, 745 N.Y.S.2d 446, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated January 26, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The affirmed reports of the defendant’s medical experts did not set forth the objective tests they performed during their examinations of the plaintiff which led them to conclude that she did not suffer a limitation to the range of motion in her [401]*401neck (see Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated January 26, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The affirmed reports of the defendant’s medical experts did not set forth the objective tests they performed during their examinations of the plaintiff which led them to conclude that she did not suffer a limitation to the range of motion in her [401]*401neck (see Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 400, 745 N.Y.S.2d 446, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wierzbicki-v-mathew-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack