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
EXPERT EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY PRECLUDED, NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED.
SHIELD LAW PROTECTS RESPONDENT FROM PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITIES OF THE SOURCES OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION, RESPONDENT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT-DISTRESSED COMPANIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF SUBSCRIBERS WHO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 1ST DEPT. 
ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT REHABILITATION FACILITY DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SIGNED THE ADMISSIONS AGREEMENT USING AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT CALLED DOCUSIGN; THEREFORE THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (FIRST DEPT).
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WAS NOT RETROACTIVE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH FROM COVID-19 (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE ALLEGING AN ANTI-GAY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED ARBITRATION BY STARTING LITIGATION, TIME RESTRICTIONS ON A MOTION FOR A STAY DID NOT APPLY.

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...