Bates v. Peeples
| Decision Date | 04 March 1991 |
| Citation | 566 N.Y.S.2d 659,171 A.D.2d 635 |
| Parties | Diane BATES, etc., Respondent, v. Patricia PEEPLES, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rivkin, Radler, Dunne & Bayh, Uniondale (Evan H. Krinick and Carol R. Finocchio, of counsel), for appellants.
Bedell & Feinberg, New York City (Roula Theofanis, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KOOPER, LAWRENCE, BALLETTA and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated May 25, 1989, which denied their motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment included proof that she was suffering from a limitation in respect to the use of her cervical spine (defined as "restricted flexion 40 degrees, extension 10 degrees, lateral bending 10 degrees"), as well as from a limitation with respect to the use of her lumbosacral spine (also defined as "restricted flexion 40 degrees, extension 10 degrees, lateral bending 10 degrees"). The plaintiff's submissions also included evidence that these limitations might be permanent. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly concluded that there were issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff had suffered a "serious injury" within the meaning of the Insurance Law (Insurance Law § 5102[d]; see, Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 494 N.Y.S.2d 101, 484 N.E.2d 130; Petrone v. Thornton, 166 A.D.2d 513, 561 N.Y.S.2d 49; Morsellino v. Frankel, 161 A.D.2d 748, 556 N.Y.S.2d 103; Lazarre v. Kopczynski, 160 A.D.2d 772, 553 N.Y.S.2d 488; Conde v. Eric Serv. Corp., 158 A.D.2d [171 A.D.2d 636] 651, 552 N.Y.S.2d 121; Healea v. Andriani, 158 A.D.2d 587, 551 N.Y.S.2d 554; Partlow v. Meehan, 155 A.D.2d 647, 548 N.Y.S.2d 239; Robbie v. Ledeoux, 146 A.D.2d 764, 537 N.Y.S.2d 72; Hughes v. Poulin, 144 A.D.2d 846, 534 N.Y.S.2d 734; Swenning v. Wankel, 140 A.D.2d 428, 528 N.Y.S.2d 130).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodder v. U.S., 01 CV 8086(CLP).
...N.Y.S.2d 973 (2d Dep't 1997) (finding 20% restriction of motion in cervical spine significant); see also Bates v. Peeples, 171 A.D.2d 635, 635, 566 N.Y.S.2d 659, 660 (2d Dep't 1991) (affirming denial of summary judgment where plaintiff had suffered a restriction of "flexion 40 degrees, exte......
-
Tenzen v. Hirschfeld
...565, 658 N.Y.S.2d 973 (2d Dep't 1997) (finding 20% restriction of motion in cervical spine significant); Bates v. Peeples, 171 A.D.2d 635, 635, 566 N.Y.S.2d 659, 660 (2d Dep't 1991) (affirming denial of summary judgment where plaintiff had suffered a restriction of "flexion 40 degrees, exte......
-
Barney v. US, 93-CV-1496.
...a serious injury within the meaning of § 5102(d) of New York's no-fault insurance law. The plaintiff cites Bates v. Peeples, 171 A.D.2d 635, 566 N.Y.S.2d 659 (2d Dept.1991), in support of her argument in favor of summary judgment, as a very similar case factually. However, Bates, in fact su......
-
Ventra v. U.S.
...even when doctor used the word "significant" to describe plaintiff's stiff neck injury). But see, e.g., Bates v. Peeples, 171 A.D.2d 635, 636, 566 N.Y.S.2d 659, 660 (2d Dep't 1991). Therefore, plaintiff does not suffer from a serious injury pursuant to this category of the No-Fault 3. Preve......