You are here: / / Significant Limitation Need Not Be Permanent to Constitute Serious Injury;...
,

Significant Limitation Need Not Be Permanent to Constitute Serious Injury; Recent Physical Examination Is Not Prerequisite for Overcoming Summary Judgment

In reversing summary judgment granted to the defendant, the First Department noted that a significant limitation of use of a body function need not be permanent to constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102, and the First Department further explained that its precedent in this area should not be read to require a recent physical examination to overcome summary judgment:

…”[A] significant limitation [of use of a body function or system] need not be permanent in order to constitute a serious injury”…. Indeed, a ” permanent consequential limitation’ requires a greater degree of proof than a significant limitation’, as only the former requires proof of permanence”…. “Insurance Law § 5102(d) does not expressly set forth any temporal requirement,” although assessment of the limitation’s significance does require consideration of its duration in addition to its extent and degree…. Therefore, the lack of a recent examination, while sometimes relevant, is not dispositive by itself in determining whether a plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact in opposing a defendant’s prima facie evidence under the “significant limitation” category.  Our decision in Townes v Harlem Group, Inc. (82 AD3d 583, 583-584 [1st Dept 2011]), should not be read to require a plaintiff to submit a recent examination as a necessary prerequisite to overcoming judgment as a matter of law in every instance of a claim under the “significant limitation” category. To the extent that the Townes Court did require a recent examination, it was due to the specific facts present in that case. Furthermore, the precedents that decision relied upon in requiring a recent examination do not specifically address the degree of proof necessary for a “significant limitation” claim as opposed to a “permanent consequential limitation” claim, instead conflating these two categories of serious injury…. Vasquez v Almanzar, 2013 NY Slip Op 04561, 1st Dept, 6-18-13

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO CITE STATUTORY BASIS FOR MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN NOTICE OF MOTION NOT FATAL, QUESTION WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION REQUIRED A TRAVERSE HEARING, BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RESIDE AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CPLR 3215(g)(3) NOTICE NOT REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
The Availability of Pre-Suit Discovery in a Shareholder Derivative Action is a Substantive, Not a Procedural, Issue—The Law in the State Where the Corporation Is Chartered Controls
Release Time Certificates, Allowing Full Pay for Police Officers Doing Union Work, Properly Rescinded Based Upon the Indictment of the Officers
THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED A PEN TO PUNCTURE THE CHEEK OF THE VICTIM CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT USED A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND CASE, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ORDINARY-NONDEADLY-FORCE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO REAR-END COLLISION.
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON AN UNEVEN MAT WHEN SHE STEPPED OFF THE DEFENDANT’S SKATING RINK; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COMPANY WHICH SOLD AND INSTALLED THE MAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THE SKATING RINK AND THE SELLER/INSTALLER OF THE MAT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SELLER/INSTALLER OF THE MAT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
ACTUAL INNOCENCE IS A GROUND FOR VACATION OF A CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 440.10; PROOF HERE INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING; HEARING REQUIRED ON WHETHER PROSECUTOR WITHHELD BRADY MATERIAL.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Appellate Court Recognized Prior Decision Was “Clearly Erroneous” and Did... Irrelevant Information in Presentence Report Should Not Have Been Allowed In...