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

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

DecidedApril 23, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 242 (Cruz v. Calabiza) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 242, 641 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-calabiza-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack