Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Shawn HUGGINS, Appellant, v. Lonnie DANIELS, Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 7, 1996, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered September 5, 1996, upon the order.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order is vacated, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a][1] ).
On April 4, 1992, the plaintiff was riding his bicycle when he was struck by the defendant's motor vehicle at the intersection of Main Street and Route 112 in Patchogue. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d).
In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit by his treating neurologist, Dr. Philip Su, who treated the plaintiff for over three years following the accident. Dr. Su's affidavit indicated that as a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered a loss of motion of between 40% and 50% in his lumbosacral spine, and that this loss was significant and permanent. This affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102[d]; see, Pareti v. Giglietta, 221 A.D.2d 607, 634 N.Y.S.2d 201; Mendola v. Demetres, 212 A.D.2d 515, 622 N.Y.S.2d 309).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 24, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)