From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Camilo v. Forlini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 10, 2003
304 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

782

April 10, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered May 31, 2002, which denied defendants' motion and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dylan Braverman, for plaintiff-respondent-appellant.

Daniel J. Herrera, for defendants-appellants-respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow, JJ.


Plaintiff's cross motion was properly denied in light of factual questions precluding summary adjudication of the threshold issue as to whether plaintiff sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Maldonado v. DePalo, 277 A.D.2d 21, 22). Plaintiff demonstrated a triable issue of fact with an affidavit that included her medical expert's "designation of a numeric percentage of a plaintiff's loss of range of motion" (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 350). We have considered the remaining arguments of both sides for summary judgment and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Camilo v. Forlini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 10, 2003
304 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Camilo v. Forlini

Case Details

Full title:MERCEDES CAMILO, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. DEREK P. FORLINI, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 10, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 751

Citing Cases

Lantigua v. Williams

A second examination conducted 4½ years after the accident revealed the same symptoms, as well as range of…

Bobi v. Soulanzos

Although the court properly exercised its discretion, under the circumstances, in entertaining defendant's…