Beckett v. Ishmael
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
While the medical evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injuries were not serious (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957), the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition thereto raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for the statutory period (see Connors v Center City, 291 AD2d 476, 477). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.