Collins v. Jost

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collins v. Jost

281 A.D.2d 175, 721 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2242

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 175 (Collins v. Jost) 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

Collins v. Jost, 281 A.D.2d 175, 721 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs had not sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The findings of limitations in cervical movement were insufficient to establish that plaintiffs sustained either a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system within the meaning of the statute. The restriction in cervical flexion purportedly diagnosed for Martin, the most extensive limitation claimed to have been sustained by any of the plaintiffs, did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered a [176]*176serious injury. The diagnosis that Thomas suffered a herniated disc was based on an MRI report done by another doctor that was not submitted in plaintiffs’ papers, and the IAS Court properly disregarded the claim as unsupported by competent, admissible evidence. Additional diagnostic statements in the treating chiropractor’s reports were “conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements” (Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs had not sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The findings of limitations in cervical movement were insufficient to establish that plaintiffs sustained either a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system within the meaning of the statute. The restriction in cervical flexion purportedly diagnosed for Martin, the most extensive limitation claimed to have been sustained by any of the plaintiffs, did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered a [176]*176serious injury. The diagnosis that Thomas suffered a herniated disc was based on an MRI report done by another doctor that was not submitted in plaintiffs’ papers, and the IAS Court properly disregarded the claim as unsupported by competent, admissible evidence. Additional diagnostic statements in the treating chiropractor’s reports were “conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements” (Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 175, 721 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-jost-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack