Rosenblum v Irby, 2021 NY Slip Op 02854 (3d Dept. 2021) (1) “As far as the significant limitation of use category is concerned, permanency of limitation
Morales v Cabral, 2019 NY Slip Op 08516 (1st Dept. 2019) ” Defendant Morales established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to
Mondesir v Ahmed, 2019 NY Slip Op 06489 (2d Dept. 2019) “One of the defendants’ experts found significant limitations in the range of motion of the
Niedzwiecki v Yeates, 2019 NY Slip Op 06249 (4th Dept. 2019) Another Fourth Department case that just makes you think, what the heck. Rear-end collision, which
Cline v Code, 2019 NY Slip Op 06251 (4th Dept. 2019) I have always said the Fourth Department has some of the more interesting discussions of
Jackson v Doe, 2019 NY Slip Op 04765 (1st Dept. 2019) “Defendant satisfied his prima facie burden of showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious
Martinez v Keenan, 2019 NY Slip Op 50474(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2019) ” We note that, contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiff was not required to submit
Savilo v Denner, 2019 NY Slip Op 01972 (4th Dept. 2019) Plaintiff lost his threshold motion, which are common in the Fourth Department based upon their
Ampofo v Key, 2019 NY Slip Op 00559 (1st Dept. 2019) “Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff’s claimed right ankle and foot sprains were not serious
Gore v Cardany, 2018 NY Slip Op 08632 (2d Dept. 2018) “The plaintiff has the burden of establishing damages for past and future lost earnings with reasonable
Lambropoulos v Gomez, 2018 NY Slip Op 08118 (2d Dept. 2018) In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as
Ortega v Healthcare Servs. Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07568 (4th Dept. 2018) (1) “Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries Rose Ortega (plaintiff) allegedly
