Crandon v. Leisure Time Tours

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crandon v. Leisure Time Tours

282 A.D.2d 570, 723 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3841

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 570 (Crandon v. Leisure Time Tours) 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

Crandon v. Leisure Time Tours, 282 A.D.2d 570, 723 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Leisure Time Tours and Jay N. Pouncy, Jr., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated August 17, 2000, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Gavin A. Crandon.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Gavin A. Crandon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, Crandon submitted the affirmed medical report of Dr. Nathan Levin, which failed to state what, if any, objective tests were performed to determine the alleged restrictions in the range of motion of his lumbosacral spine (see, Monaco v Davenport, 277 AD2d 209; Lobo v Singh, 259 AD2d 523; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 85; Russell v City of Mount Vernon, 256 AD2d 454; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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, etc., the defendants Leisure Time Tours and Jay N. Pouncy, Jr., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated August 17, 2000, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Gavin A. Crandon.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Gavin A. Crandon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, Crandon submitted the affirmed medical report of Dr. Nathan Levin, which failed to state what, if any, objective tests were performed to determine the alleged restrictions in the range of motion of his lumbosacral spine (see, Monaco v Davenport, 277 AD2d 209; Lobo v Singh, 259 AD2d 523; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 85; Russell v City of Mount Vernon, 256 AD2d 454; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 570, 723 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crandon-v-leisure-time-tours-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack