Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Maria Rodriguez et al., Respondents, v. Michelle Duggan et al., Appellants
266 A.D.2d 859697 N.Y.S.2d 803·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1999·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Maria Rodriguez et al., Respondents, v Michelle Duggan et al., Appellants.
[697 NYS2d 803]
[MAJORITY]
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that Maria Rodriguez (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious physical injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiffs raised an issue of fact, however, by the affidavit of plaintiffs chiropractor, who stated that he measured significant restrictions in the flexion, extension and rotation of plaintiffs cervical spine 11 months after the accident and opined that those restrictions are permanent (see, Nathanson v David, 244 AD2d 930). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Dillon, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.