Agramonte v. Marvin

22 A.D.3d 322, 802 N.Y.S.2d 420
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 13, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered July 9, 2004, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to plaintiffs-appellants on the ground that they did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs received physical therapy for three months after the accident but sought no other treatment until two years later, shortly after defendants made the first of their motions for summary judgment. This unexplained gap in treatment is fatal to plaintiffs’ claims of serious injury (Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; Colon v Kempner, 20 AD3d 372, 374 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Agramonte v. Marvin, 22 A.D.3d 322, 802 N.Y.S.2d 420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

22 A.D.3d 322 (Agramonte v. Marvin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Britton v. Villa Auto Corp.
89 A.D.3d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Henry v. Rivera
34 A.D.3d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Perilla v. Akanda
14 Misc. 3d 555 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Taylor v. Terrigno
27 A.D.3d 316 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Toussaint v. Claudio
23 A.D.3d 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)