Browne v. Covington
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Supreme Court properly determined that Lavern Browne raised an issue of fact with respect to whether she suffered a serious injury insofar as the claims are premised upon her “permanent consequential limitation of use” and “significant limitation of use” of her spine, right shoulder, and left ankle (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]).
That portion of defendant’s argument premised upon the alleged gap in Lavern Browne’s treatment with Dr. Opam is unpreserved and, additionally, unavailing (see Byong Yol Yi v Canela, 70 AD3d 584, 585 [2010]). The fact that the same physician also examined her in January…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Pommells v. PerezNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Rosa-Diaz v. Maria Auto Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Byong Yol Yi v. CanelaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Ortiz v. Ash Leasing, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Serbia v. MudgeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Eteng v. Dajos TransportationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Bonilla v. AbdullahAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Pindo v. LenisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Arenas v. GuamanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.