Donohue v. Bernstein (2016)

In opposition, however, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether he sustained a serious injury with respect to each of those categories ( see Strangio v Vasquez , 144 AD3d 1579, 1580 [4th Dept 2016]; Pastuszynski v Lofaso , 140 AD3d 1710, 1711 [4th Dept 2016]).

Based on the above, we conclude that defendant's own submissions raised issues of fact with respect to plaintiff's thoracic spine injury under the significant limitation of use and permanent consequential limitation of use categories ( see generally Strangio v Vasquez , 144 AD3d 1579, 1580 [4th Dept 2016]; Aleksiejuk v Pell , 300 AD2d 1066, 1066-1067 [4th Dept 2002]).

With respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of serious injury, even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact by submitting the expert opinion of his treating chiropractor, “who relied upon objective proof of plaintiff’s injury, provided quantifications of plaintiff’s loss of ran…

Although defendants met their initial burden on the motion by submitting “competent medical evidence establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under either of those categories” (Robinson v Polasky, 32 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2006]; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether she sustained a serious injury under both categories (see Strangio v Vasquez, 144 AD3d 1579, 1580…

Although defendants met their initial burden on the motion by submitting “competent medical evidence establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under either of those categories” (Robinson v Polasky, 32 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2006]; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether she sustained a serious injury under both categories (see Strangio v Vasquez, 144 AD3d 1579, 1580…

Although defendants met their initial burden on the motion by submitting “competent medical evidence establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under either of those categories” (Robinson v Polasky, 32 AD3d 1215, 1216 ; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ), plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether she sustained a serious injury under both categories (see Strangio v Vasquez, 144 AD3d 1579, 1580 ; Pastuszyn…