Legal Opinion
Wetzel v. Santana
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 17, 2011PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants submitted the affirmed report of an orthopedist who examined plaintiff and found that he had normal ranges of motion in his cervical spine and that the limited ranges of motions in his lumbar spine were related to his age (see Torres v Triboro Servs., Inc., 83 AD3d 563 [2011]).
In opposition, plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff failed to submit competent medical…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- DeJesus v. PaulinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Pou v. E&S Wholesale Meats, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Torres v. Triboro Services, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Lopez v. EadesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
3Cited by7 opinions
- Henchy v. VAS Express Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Levinson v. MollahAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Rivera v. GonzalezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Correa v. Asm SaifuddinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Henchy v. VAS Express Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.