 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sands v. Stark11/7/2002
s well as an EMG and nerve conduction studies which disclosed a median neuropathy at the right wrist. He also averred that during the first six months of treatment, he imposed restrictions on plaintiff's household, work and recreational activities. Moreover, plaintiff provided a detailed affidavit listing the many activities she was precluded from performing following the accident, including cleaning, laundry, exercising, painting, hiking, taking out garbage, unloading heavy boxes and tending to her horse. The fact that plaintiff returned to work within a few months of the accident is not dispositive (see Judd v Walton, 259 AD2d 1016, 1017). As plaintiff's proof raised a question of fact as to whether she suffered a serious injury within the 90/180 category, Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion.
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
|