From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lutgen v. Czapla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 21, 2003
1 A.D.3d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CA 03-01000.

November 21, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Glownia, J.), entered August 23, 2002, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Law Offices of John Quackenbush, Buffalo (Alan J. Bedenko of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.

Sakowski Markello, Elma (Joseph A. Sakowski of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Before: Present: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Kehoe, and Hayes, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries to two fingers on his left hand, allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident in which a vehicle driven by defendant collided with his vehicle. Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Although defendant met her initial burden on the motion by establishing that plaintiff sustained only a minor or slight limitation of use of those fingers and thus did not a sustain serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 957), we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion ( see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit of his treating physician, who provided a quantitative assessment of the loss of strength in plaintiff's left hand and who attributed that loss of strength to the injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident ( see generally Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 353). The physician further stated that, because the condition had persisted for three years, he believed the loss of strength to be permanent. We therefore conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether he sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system ( see § 5102 [d]).


Summaries of

Lutgen v. Czapla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 21, 2003
1 A.D.3d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Lutgen v. Czapla

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE A. LUTGEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LILY B. CZAPLA…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 373

Citing Cases

Schreiber v. Krehbiel

We agree with defendants that they met their burden by establishing as a matter of law that there was no…

Feggins v. Fagard

e unsworn reports and uncertified medical records may be considered because they are not in admissible form.…