Legal Opinion
Rowe v. Wahnow
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided November 19, 2009PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
Order, dated March 12, 2008, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendant established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendant’s examining physicians found that plaintiff had recovered from soft tissue injuries, without neurological or orthopedic disability, and had normal ranges of motion (see Gorden v Tibulcio, 50 AD3d 460 [2008]; Johnson v Paulino, 49 AD3d 379 [2008]; Rossi v Alhassan, 48 AD3d 270 [2008]).…
3Cases cited5 opinions
- Misicki v. CaradonnaNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Thompson v. AbbasiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Gorden v. TibulcioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Rossi v. AlhassanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Johnson v. PaulinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
4Cited by3 opinions
- Boulevard Multispec Medical, P.C. v. Tri-State Consumer InsuranceNassau County District Court · 2014
- Amato v. State Farm InsuranceNew York District Court · 2010
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. 21st Century Pharmacy, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2020