From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McLinden v. Schoeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 7, 1999
261 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 7, 1999

Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Scudder, J. — Summary Judgment.

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner and Callahan, JJ.


Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Anne H. McLinden (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). From our review of the record, we conclude that the affidavits of the treating physician and chiropractor submitted by plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion were sufficient to raise' a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury ( see, Marszalek v. Brown, 247 A.D.2d 827; Hawkins v. Forshee, 245 A.D.2d 1091; Denner v. Mizgala, 245 A.D.2d 1069).


Summaries of

McLinden v. Schoeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 7, 1999
261 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

McLinden v. Schoeck

Case Details

Full title:ANNE H. McLINDEN et al., Appellants, v. TONNYA R. SCHOECK, Respondent

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

Date published: May 7, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 916