Summary
affirming denial of summary judgment; sworn affidavits of medical examinations conducted three years after the occurrence of the accident raised triable issue regarding whether plaintiffs had suffered "significant limitations" because the affidavits specified the degree of restriction in the range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spines of one plaintiff, and the cervical spine of the other
Summary of this case from Rivera v. United StatesOpinion
April 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits sworn to on May 20, 1997, by Dr. Andrew Brown which were based, inter alia, on examinations of the plaintiffs which he had performed approximately one month earlier, some three years after the occurrence of the accident. The affidavits specified the degree of restriction in the range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spines of the plaintiff Mary Eng, and the cervical spine of the plaintiff Eugene Eng. The affidavits were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs sustained a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Pareti v. Giglietta, 221 A.D.2d 607, citing Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774).
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.