Ahmed v. Jaekyoo Yoo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahmed v. Jaekyoo Yoo

255 A.D.2d 345, 679 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 345 (Ahmed v. Jaekyoo Yoo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahmed v. Jaekyoo Yoo, 255 A.D.2d 345, 679 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated November 14, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[346]*346The defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In order to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he suffered a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), as alleged, the plaintiff was required to submit objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation and its duration (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). The affidavit of the plaintiff’s physician failed to provide such evidence in that it relied on unsworn reports (see, Merisca v Alford, 243 AD2d 613; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated November 14, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[346]*346The defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In order to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he suffered a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), as alleged, the plaintiff was required to submit objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation and its duration (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). The affidavit of the plaintiff’s physician failed to provide such evidence in that it relied on unsworn reports (see, Merisca v Alford, 243 AD2d 613; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 345, 679 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-jaekyoo-yoo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack