Baker v. Elite Ambulette Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baker v. Elite Ambulette Service, Inc.

44 A.D.3d 496, 843 N.Y.S.2d 588

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 496 (Baker v. Elite Ambulette Service, Inc.) 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

Baker v. Elite Ambulette Service, Inc., 44 A.D.3d 496, 843 N.Y.S.2d 588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered April 24, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[497]*497Defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary-judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the car accident between the parties (Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that a serious injury was sustained within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of plaintiffs’ medical expert failed to explain adequately the reason for the three-year gap in plaintiffs’ treatment, and the excuse is not supported by the record (see Black v Regalado, 36 AD3d 437 [2007]; see also Wei-San Hsu v Briscoe Protective Sys., Inc., 43 AD3d 916 [2007]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered April 24, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[497]*497Defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary-judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the car accident between the parties (Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that a serious injury was sustained within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of plaintiffs’ medical expert failed to explain adequately the reason for the three-year gap in plaintiffs’ treatment, and the excuse is not supported by the record (see Black v Regalado, 36 AD3d 437 [2007]; see also Wei-San Hsu v Briscoe Protective Sys., Inc., 43 AD3d 916 [2007]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 496, 843 N.Y.S.2d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-elite-ambulette-service-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack