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
EVIDENCE OF OCCASIONAL MARIJUANA USE DID NOT SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF 15 POINTS IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).
PASSING REFERENCE IN A CONTRACT TO A ‘TERMS AND CONDITIONS’ PAGE THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE CONTRACT REVIEWED BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT SERVE TO INCORPORATE THE PAGE INTO THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.
THE VICTIM OF THE ASSAULT AND ATTEMPTED ROBBERY COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT; THE VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT DIDN’T HELP; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE HE WAS DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEO NEAR THE SCENE WEARING DISTINCTIVE RIPPED AND PATCHED PANTS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED BY THE VICTIM OR DEPICTED IN THE INCIDENT VIDEO; THE ARREST WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED AFTER GUILTY PLEA (FIRST DEPT).
Temporary Maintenance Award Not Waived by Prenuptial Agreement Waiving Only the Final Award of Alimony or Maintenance
THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTES IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PROTECTED DEFENDANT AGAINST A DEFAMATION ACTION BY THE PLASTIC SURGEON ABOUT WHOM DEFENDANT POSTED NEGATIVE ONLINE REVIEWS; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AND DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2026 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...