Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995

Flanagan v. Hoeg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 27, 1995

212 A.D.2d 756; 624 N.Y.S.2d 853; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2198

Cases that cite this one

72 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Gavrel v. Jiang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Sainte-Aime v. Ho (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Kearse v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Positko v. Krawiec (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Francis v. Christopher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Lagois v. Public Administrator (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Akinyemi v. Kette (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Argudo v. Scandariato (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Trunk v. Spross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Jimenez v. Darden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Klimis v. Lopez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Hines v. Swift Transportation Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Moiseau v. Dumas-Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Smith v. Wetzel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Jankowsky v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Newman-Bachhuber v. Yukun Hu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Reid v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Kraska v. Puleo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Nejat v. Alvi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Reardon v. Leone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Finkelshteyn v. Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Kutler v. Jowers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Itzkowitz v. Cancel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Lesser v. Smart Cab Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Papadonikolakis v. First Fidelity Leasing Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated September 22, 1993, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated November 23, 1993, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 22, 1993, is dismissed since that order was superseded by the order dated November 23, 1993, made upon renewal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 23, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

*757Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that the injured plaintiffs bulging or herniated disc does not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). In support of his motion, the defendant submitted reports from the injured plaintiffs treating physicians. Those reports establish a question of fact regarding whether the injured plaintiff suffers from a bulging or herniated disc and whether the plaintiffs limited range of motion of the lumbar spine constitutes a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1020; Conde v Eric Serv. Corp., 158 AD2d 651). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion papers fail to establish a prima facie case that plaintiffs injuries are not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.