From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kosciolek v. Jianguo Chen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted April 11, 2001.

May 21, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated June 21, 2000, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d).

Asher Associates, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Stacy N. Baden of counsel), for appellants.

Jaffe Nohavicka, New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting those branches of the defendants' motion which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Tadeusz Kosciolek to recover damages for personal injuries, and insofar as asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Krystyna Kosciolek to recover damages for loss of services, and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

With respect to the plaintiff Tadeusz Kosciolek, the defendants submitted a physician's affirmation quantifying loss of range of motion, and referring to positive results of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination. The defendants' doctor further noted that "there is probable causality between the injuries sustained and the accident reported". In view of the foregoing, the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to that plaintiff's cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries (see, Murphy v. Demas, 277 A.D.2d 208). However, with respect to the plaintiff Krystyna Kosciolek, the defendants submitted admissible evidence demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to come forward with competent evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834; Gutierrez v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 240 A.D.2d 469; Marshall v. Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614).

O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kosciolek v. Jianguo Chen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Kosciolek v. Jianguo Chen

Case Details

Full title:TADEUSZ KOSCIOLEK, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JIANGUO CHEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: May 21, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
725 N.Y.S.2d 69

Citing Cases

Mobley v. J. Foster Phillips Funeral Home, Inc.

Plaintiff has failed to establish a causal connection between the accident and the injuries. The causal…

Mobley v. J. Foster Phillips Funeral Home, Inc.

Plaintiff has failed to establish a causal connection between the accident and the injuries. The causal…