Best v. Sinhe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Best v. Sinhe

295 A.D.2d 106, 742 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5882

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

DecidedJune 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 106 (Best v. Sinhe) 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

Best v. Sinhe, 295 A.D.2d 106, 742 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about January 19, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate an order, entered on default, granting appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them upon the ground that plaintiff had not sustained “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No issue is presented as to the reasonableness of the explanation offered by plaintiff for his default in opposing appellants’ summary judgment motion. Accordingly, since plaintiff on his present motion also demonstrated the existence of triable issues as to whether he sustained a serious personal injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the motion court properly vacated his default. The physician’s affirmation submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion adequately sets forth objective medical findings with respect to, inter alia, the limitations of motion suffered by plaintiff by reason of injuries sustained in the accident (see, Marquez v New York City Tr. Auth., 259 AD2d 261), and the medical evidence in combination with plaintiff’s affidavit and deposition testimony suffice to establish a triable issue as to whether plaintiff sustained an injury which prevented him from performing substantially all of his daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about January 19, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate an order, entered on default, granting appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them upon the ground that plaintiff had not sustained “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No issue is presented as to the reasonableness of the explanation offered by plaintiff for his default in opposing appellants’ summary judgment motion. Accordingly, since plaintiff on his present motion also demonstrated the existence of triable issues as to whether he sustained a serious personal injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the motion court properly vacated his default. The physician’s affirmation submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion adequately sets forth objective medical findings with respect to, inter alia, the limitations of motion suffered by plaintiff by reason of injuries sustained in the accident (see, Marquez v New York City Tr. Auth., 259 AD2d 261), and the medical evidence in combination with plaintiff’s affidavit and deposition testimony suffice to establish a triable issue as to whether plaintiff sustained an injury which prevented him from performing substantially all of his daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 106, 742 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-v-sinhe-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack