From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pagan v. Gondola Cab Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1997
235 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Summary

holding that a 20% restriction in the cervical spine is a type 8 injury and summary judgment is denied

Summary of this case from Scotto v. Moraldo

Opinion

January 14, 1997.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered January 26, 1996, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.


Summary judgment was properly denied where the medical report of defendants' physician, offered to establish that plaintiff had not suffered "serious injury" under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), was unsigned and therefore not in admissible form ( DeAngelo v Fidel Corp. Servs., 171 AD2d 588). In any event, the affidavit of plaintiffs treating physician, stating that he found a 20% restriction of both the cervical and lumbosacral spine after a recent examination and testing, sufficed to show, prima facie, that the injuries were objectively measured and "`"significant"'" ( Parker v Defontaine-Stratton, 231 AD2d 412, 413).


Summaries of

Pagan v. Gondola Cab Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1997
235 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

holding that a 20% restriction in the cervical spine is a type 8 injury and summary judgment is denied

Summary of this case from Scotto v. Moraldo
Case details for

Pagan v. Gondola Cab Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LISA PAGAN, Respondent, v. GONDOLA CAB CORP. et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jan 14, 1997

Citations

235 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
652 N.Y.S.2d 277

Citing Cases

Scotto v. Moraldo

teral bending 10 degrees" in the cervical spine raises an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had…

Scarano v. Wehrens

The proof must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here, the plaintiff ( Cammarere v…