Atkins v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atkins v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

222 A.D.2d 390, 634 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12488

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 390 (Atkins v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority) 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

Atkins v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, 222 A.D.2d 390, 634 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated February 3, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The affidavit prepared by Dr. Ronald Nackman in support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars as to the amount of time she was incapacitated and absent from work established that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to submit a medical affidavit based on a recent physical examination which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774) or whether she was prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated February 3, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The affidavit prepared by Dr. Ronald Nackman in support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars as to the amount of time she was incapacitated and absent from work established that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to submit a medical affidavit based on a recent physical examination which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774) or whether she was prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 390, 634 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-metropolitan-suburban-bus-authority-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack