Summary
finding that plaintiff's showing that his limitation of motion was "supported . . . by specific measurements concerning limitations" was sufficient to defeat summary judgment
Summary of this case from Davis v. OgandoOpinion
February 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment, holding that they failed to establish that the plaintiff Angel Mendola did not sustain a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). In support of their motion for summary judgment, the appellants submitted reports from the injured plaintiff's treating physicians. One of these reports, by Dr. Joseph Amodei, revealed that the injured plaintiff's range of motion of the thoraco/lumbar spine was limited in all planes of movement and supported this conclusion by specific measurements concerning these limitations (see, Conde v. Eric Serv. Corp., 158 A.D.2d 651; cf., Tipping-Cestari v. Kilhenny, 174 A.D.2d 663). Accordingly, the appellants' motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that Ms. Mendola's injuries were not serious. Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.