Cruz v. Calabiza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. Calabiza

226 A.D.2d 242, 641 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3975

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 23, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered August 11, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that the affidavits submitted by plaintiff and her treating physicians, which make only general references to the alleged pain plaintiff continues to suffer and the alleged permanency of her condition, and which fail to specify either the nature of the limitations on the use of any body functions or organs or to state with particularity how the alleged pain affects plaintiff’s routine daily activities, were insufficient to overcome defendants’ prima facie showing that plaintiff’s injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Klapper v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 127 AD2d 566; compare, Mooney v Ovitt, 100 AD2d 702). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered August 11, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that the affidavits submitted by plaintiff and her treating physicians, which make only general references to the alleged pain plaintiff continues to suffer and the alleged permanency of her condition, and which fail to specify either the nature of the limitations on the use of any body functions or organs or to state with particularity how the alleged pain affects plaintiff’s routine daily activities, were insufficient to overcome defendants’ prima facie showing that plaintiff’s injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Klapper v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 127 AD2d 566; compare, Mooney v Ovitt, 100 AD2d 702). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cruz v. Calabiza, 226 A.D.2d 242, 641 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

226 A.D.2d 242 (Cruz v. Calabiza) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related