From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitzpatrick v. Spottiswood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 27, 1997

Appeals from Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in treating the plaintiff's motion as one to renew ( see, Oremland v. Miller Minuteman Constr. Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816).

Moreover, the physician's affidavit, which the plaintiff submitted upon renewal, provided objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation of movement of the plaintiff's cervical spine and its duration ( see, Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774), thus raising a triable issue of fact ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to the existence of a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fitzpatrick v. Spottiswood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Fitzpatrick v. Spottiswood

Case Details

Full title:MAUREEN FITZPATRICK, Respondent, v. LINDA SPOTTISWOOD et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Oct 27, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 575

Citing Cases

Tyler v. TT Leasing Corp. [2d Dept 1999

In opposition to the appellant's motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of her treating chiropractor,…

Tyler v. TT Leasing Corp.

In opposition to the appellant's motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of her treating chiropractor,…