From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rice v. Moses

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 31, 2002
300 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2705

December 31, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about June 11, 2002, which denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Stephen C. Glasser, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Anthony J. Centone, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: WILLIAMS, P.J., MAZZARELLI, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, MARLOW, JJ.


Whether plaintiff's decedent suffered a serious injury is a factual issue raised by the decedent's treating physician's affirmation. The affirmation correlates the decedent's claimed inability to engage in her customary daily activities five-and-a-half months after the accident to range of motion limitations found on his own physical examination and upon MRI reports describing bulging discs at C2-C3 though C6-C7 with cord impingement and central spinal stenosis appreciated as described in MRI reports (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 350, 351-353, 353-355). Because of the evidence adduced by the first-hand observations of plaintiff's treating physician, it does not avail defendants that the MRI reports are unsworn (see id. at 358; Ayzen v. Melendez, 299 A.D.2d 381, 749 N.Y.S.2d 445).

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


Summaries of

Rice v. Moses

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 31, 2002
300 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Rice v. Moses

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT W. RICE, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICHTER MOSES, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Dec 31, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
752 N.Y.S.2d 318

Citing Cases

Cekic v. Zapata

However, unaffirmed or uncertified medical records may be admissible where they were properly referenced by…

Cekic v. Zapata

However, unaffirmed or uncertified medical records may be admissible where they were properly referenced by…