From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Chinatomby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 11, 1994
208 A.D.2d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 11, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

In opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted evidence in admissible form that because of the injuries he sustained he was unable to return to his job for more than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following his automobile accident with the defendant. The plaintiff also submitted evidence that he was unable to stand for prolonged periods of time. Thus, this evidence raised a triable issue of fact whether he sustained a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 in that he was prevented from performing substantially all of his usual and customary daily activities for the threshold period (cf., Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 238; Georgia v. Ramautar, 180 A.D.2d 713; De Filippo v. White, 101 A.D.2d 801). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Chinatomby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 11, 1994
208 A.D.2d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Chinatomby

Case Details

Full title:RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. GEORGE CHINATOMBY, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 11, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 224

Citing Cases

Peplow v. Murat

of his examining orthopedist, which was based on an examination of the plaintiff two years after the…

Hoo v. Uribe

As conceded by the respondent, the Supreme Court incorrectly characterized the document submitted by the…