Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Rosmarin v. Lamontanaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 28, 1997

238 A.D.2d 567; 656 N.Y.S.2d 382; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4428

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Asta v. Eivers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Conway v. Cuomo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Langford v. Jewett Transportation Service (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Faruque v. Ponce (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Belmonte v. Collins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Rosmarin v. Lamontanaro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Dillon v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Hawkins v. Montero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Barreto v. Longner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Cracchiolo v. Rostkowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Boehm v. Estate of Mack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Crepsac v. Owens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated October 4, 1996, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted reports prepared by their radiologist and the plaintiff’s radiologist and chiropractor. The reports of both radiologists concluded that a magnetic resonance image taken of the plaintiff’s cervical spine approximately one month after the accident revealed the existence of bulging discs at three levels (see, Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Further, the report prepared by the plaintiff’s chiropractor provided objective evidence of the degree of the limitation of use of the plaintiff’s cervical spine and its duration, thus raising a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered a significant limitation (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774).

*568The defendants’ evidence thus failed to make out a prima facie case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ.; concur.

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