Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

SCHWARTZ v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Jul 15, 1996

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff met her burden by demonstrating that she suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law ยง 5102 (d). Specifically, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a doctor of osetoepathy who stated that plaintiff incurred "restricted motion [of the lumbar spine] by 10 degrees * * * after achieving maximum medical improvement". This affidavit concluded that the plaintiff is "permanently partially disabled". Accordingly, the plaintiff demonstrated by competent medical evidence that she suffered a significant permanent limitation of a body function or system and the defendant's motion was thus properly denied (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Burgwin v. Langmaack, 224 A.D.2d 569). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ. concur.