From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mangano v. Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

holding that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting an affidavit of her orthopedic surgeon who concluded that she suffered permanent limitations including a 20-30% loss of flexion, rotation and extension in her neck, a 20-degree loss of full elevation of the right shoulder, permanent winging of the right scapula with permanent nerve damage and palsy to the long thoracic nerve and a 20% loss of use of the right shoulder

Summary of this case from Mastrantuono v. U.S.

Opinion

June 16, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, McCarthy, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, HURLBUTT AND SCUDDER, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Donna L. Mangano (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury ( see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) in the motor vehicle accident at issue herein. Although defendants met their initial burden, plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of an orthopedic surgeon who had treated plaintiff for over 2 1/2 years following the accident. He opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff had suffered permanent limitations including, inter alia, a 20% to 30% loss of flexion, rotation and extension in her neck, a 20 degree loss of full elevation of the right shoulder, permanent winging of the right scapula with permanent nerve damage and palsy to the long thoracic nerve and a 20% loss of use of the right shoulder. That evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury ( see, Rodriguez v. Duggan, 266 A.D.2d 859; Nathanson v. David, 244 A.D.2d 930; Jablonski v. Bolt, 213 A.D.2d 982).


Summaries of

Mangano v. Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

holding that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting an affidavit of her orthopedic surgeon who concluded that she suffered permanent limitations including a 20-30% loss of flexion, rotation and extension in her neck, a 20-degree loss of full elevation of the right shoulder, permanent winging of the right scapula with permanent nerve damage and palsy to the long thoracic nerve and a 20% loss of use of the right shoulder

Summary of this case from Mastrantuono v. U.S.
Case details for

Mangano v. Sherman

Case Details

Full title:DONNA L. MANGANO AND SAMUEL A. MANGANO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. JOHN F…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 16, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 293

Citing Cases

Walsh v. Henry

Dixon v LaMorticella, 286 AD2d 951 [4th Dept 2001] differs significantly from this action in that the…

Testa v. Allen

Plaintiff submitted the affirmation of her treating physician for four years following the motor vehicle…