From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moffitt v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 18, 2003
2 A.D.3d 1110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

93754.

Decided and Entered: December 18, 2003.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Moynihan Jr., J.), entered December 4, 2002 in Warren County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order of said court, entered March 27, 2003 in Warren County, which, upon reargument, partially adhered to its prior decision.

Coxeter Coxeter, Duanesburg (S.J. Coxeter of counsel), for appellants.

Pennock, Breedlove Noll L.L.P., Clifton Park (Michael J. O'Brien of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Plaintiff Susan E. Moffitt (hereinafter plaintiff) and defendant were involved in a motor vehicle accident. The next day, plaintiff complained to her physician of pain in her back, neck and arms. She also visited her dentist, who took X rays which disclosed two fractured teeth. After discovery in this personal injury action, defendant moved for summary judgment alleging that plaintiffs failed to meet the serious injury threshold of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Supreme Court granted the motion. Upon reargument, the court modified its decision by dismissing the complaint with the exception of the portion "seeking damages for the fractured teeth." Plaintiffs appeal both orders.

Fractured teeth constitute a serious injury (see Kennedy v. Anthony, 195 A.D.2d 942, 943-944). Once a serious injury is established, plaintiff is "entitled to recover any damages proximately caused by the accident" (Cerniglia v. Wisniewski, 267 A.D.2d 660, 661; see Deyo v. Laidlaw Tr., 285 A.D.2d 853, 854). Thus, the court should not have confined plaintiff's potential recovery to damages related to the fractured teeth.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the orders are modified, on the law, with costs to plaintiffs, by reversing so much thereof as granted any part of defendant's motion for summary judgment; motion denied in its entirety; and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

Moffitt v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 18, 2003
2 A.D.3d 1110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Moffitt v. Murray

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN E. MOFFITT ET AL., Appellants, v. KENNETH R. MURRAY, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 18, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 1110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 685

Citing Cases

Rabun-Wood v. Fresh Direct Holdings LLC

Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury threshold pursuant to Insurance Law…

Rabun-Wood v. Fresh Direct Holdings LLC

Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury threshold pursuant to Insurance Law…