Legal Opinion
Healea v. Andriani
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 20, 1990PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In order to be entitled to summary judgment, it was incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff did not suffer from any condition defined in the Insurance Law as a "serious injury” (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The defendant therefore had the burden of proving, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not suffer a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Considering that the defendant’s own examining physician found a restriction of motion consisting of "a lack of thirty degrees in the frontal and sagittal abduction of each…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thomas v. DrakeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Swenning v. WankelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Leschen v. KollaritsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Robbie v. LedeouxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Hughes v. PoulinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
3Cited by8 opinions
- Parker v. Defontaine-StrattonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Bates v. PeeplesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Cesar v. FelixAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Meyer v. GallardoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- DeAngelo v. Fidel Corp. Services, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.