Mancuso v. Collins
| Decision Date | 29 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | CA 06-00928. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 07024,32 A.D.3d 1325,822 N.Y.S.2d 193 |
| Parties | JOHANNA R. MANCUSO, Appellant, v. TODD M. COLLINS et al., Respondents. TODD M. COLLINS et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. JOHN A. CAMILLE et al., Third-Party Defendants. JOHN A. CAMILLE, Fourth-Party Plaintiff, v. LORRAINE PIASECKI, Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered June 29, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that part of the motion of defendant John A. Camille for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against him, that part of the motion of fourth-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint, and the cross motion of defendants Todd M. Collins and Sharon R. Collins for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against them.
It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motions are denied in their entirety, the cross motion is denied, and the second amended complaint is reinstated.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when the vehicle she was driving was rear-ended in the course of a multi-vehicle accident. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the motion of defendant John A. Camille for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against him, that part of the motion of fourth-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint, and the cross motion of defendants Todd M. Collins and Sharon R. Collins for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against them.
In support of their respective motions and cross motion, defendants and fourth-party defendant (movants) contended that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of the three categories alleged by plaintiff in her bill of particulars, i.e., the permanent consequential limitation of use, significant limitation of use and the 90/180 categories (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). We conclude with respect to the first two categories that the movants submitted evidence tending to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of those categories, and thus the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kavulak v. Laimis Juodzevicius, A.V. Inc.
...objective evidence of injury, i.e., muscle spasm, x rays and an MRI showing loss of lordosis.” Mancuso v. Collins, 32 A.D.3d 1325, 1326, 822 N.Y.S.2d 193 (N.Y.A.D. 4th Dep't 2006). Similarly, a serious injury under the 90/180 category also must be supported by objective medical evidence in ......
-
Williams v. Jones
...disc injury” that was causally related to the accident (see Rissew v. Smith, 89 A.D.3d 1383, 1384, 932 N.Y.S.2d 291 ; Mancuso v. Collins, 32 A.D.3d 1325, 1326, 822 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; cf. Nitti v. Clerrico, 98 N.Y.2d 345, 357, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197 ). We further conclude that defenda......
-
Limardi v. McLeod
...774 N.E.2d 1197;[100 A.D.3d 1377]Nitti v. Clerrico, 98 N.Y.2d 345, 358, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197;see also Mancuso v. Collins, 32 A.D.3d 1325, 1326, 822 N.Y.S.2d 193). Among other things, an MRI of plaintiff's lumbar spine revealed a disc herniation at L4–L5, which plaintiff's treat......
-
Austin v. Rent a Ctr. East, Inc.
...spine, which constitutes objective evidence of injury ( see Rissew v. Smith, 89 A.D.3d 1383, 932 N.Y.S.2d 291; Mancuso v. Collins, 32 A.D.3d 1325, 1325–1326, 822 N.Y.S.2d 193; Zeigler, 5 A.D.3d at 1081, 774 N.Y.S.2d 211). In addition, plaintiff submitted reports from several medical provide......