Legal Opinion

Denner v. Mizgala

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

Decided December 31, 1997PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Although defendant met her initial burden, plaintiff submitted the affidavits of her treating physi*1070cians and thereby raised triable issues of fact whether she sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of her back and neck or a significant limitation of use of her back and neck (see, Stanavich v Pakenas, 190 AD2d 184, 186-187, lv denied 82 NY2d…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gaddy v. EylerNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. Licari v. ElliottNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Thomas v. HulslanderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  4. Stanavich v. PakenasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  5. Larrabee v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. McLinden v. SchoeckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  2. Nitti v. ClerricoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API