Burn v. Hinckley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burn v. Hinckley

196 A.D.2d 837, 602 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8578

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 837 (Burn v. Hinckley) 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

Burn v. Hinckley, 196 A.D.2d 837, 602 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J), entered June 27, 1991, which denied their 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.

Contrary to the conclusions of the Supreme Court, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff did not lose any days of work as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident. Further, although the plaintiff complained of back pain, his subjective complaints were insufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Grayer v Jerez, 192 AD2d 637; Dubois v Simpson, 182 AD2d 993; Tipping-Cestari v Kilkenny, 174 AD2d 663). Moreover, the affidavit of the plaintiffs doctor failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Grier v Kuhn, 187 AD2d 559; Hemmes v Twedt, 180 AD2d 925, 926). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J), entered June 27, 1991, which denied their 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.

Contrary to the conclusions of the Supreme Court, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff did not lose any days of work as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident. Further, although the plaintiff complained of back pain, his subjective complaints were insufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Grayer v Jerez, 192 AD2d 637; Dubois v Simpson, 182 AD2d 993; Tipping-Cestari v Kilkenny, 174 AD2d 663). Moreover, the affidavit of the plaintiffs doctor failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Grier v Kuhn, 187 AD2d 559; Hemmes v Twedt, 180 AD2d 925, 926). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 837, 602 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burn-v-hinckley-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack