From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pareti v. Giglietta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Patricia J. Smolenski and Marian E. Smolenski.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the injured plaintiff, Maryann Pareti submitted an affirmation dated July 20, 1994, prepared by Dr. Donald I. Goldman which was based on an examination of the injured plaintiff he had performed one week earlier. The affirmation indicated that as a result of the accident, the injured plaintiff had a 20% restriction of motion of her cervical spine and that the injury to the cervical spine "should be considered permanent". The affirmation was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (cf., Beckett v Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pareti v. Giglietta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Pareti v. Giglietta

Case Details

Full title:MARYANN PARETI et al., Appellants, v. KARRIE A. GIGLIETTA, Defendant, and…

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

Date published: Nov 27, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
634 N.Y.S.2d 201

Citing Cases

ZITO v. MORIARTY

Steuer v. DiDunna, 233 A.D.2d 494 (2nd Dep't 1996);Puma v. Player, 233 A.D.2d 308 (2nd Dep't 1996); Murtha v.…

Yahya v. Schwartz

The affidavits indicated that Mr. Yahya experienced a restriction of movement to 30-35 degrees with regard to…