Eastman v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eastman v. Holland

19 A.D.3d 444, 796 N.Y.S.2d 240

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

DecidedJune 13, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 444 (Eastman v. Holland) 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

Eastman v. Holland, 19 A.D.3d 444, 796 N.Y.S.2d 240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Fagones, J.), dated July 7, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The affirmed report of the defendant’s examining neurologist, as well as the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the medical records submitted by the defendant, established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a matter of law (see Nozine v Sav-On Car Rentals, 15 AD3d 555 [2005]; Sims v Megaris, 15 AD3d 468 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The conclusions of her treating physicians were based upon her subjective complaints of pain and limitations, and were unsupported by any objective medical proof (see Burke v Torres, 8 AD3d 118 [2004]; Jockimo v Abess, 304 AD2d 999, 1000 [2003]; Davis v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 531, 532 [2002]; Stowell v Safee, 251 AD2d 1026 [1998]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Fagones, J.), dated July 7, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The affirmed report of the defendant’s examining neurologist, as well as the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the medical records submitted by the defendant, established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a matter of law (see Nozine v Sav-On Car Rentals, 15 AD3d 555 [2005]; Sims v Megaris, 15 AD3d 468 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The conclusions of her treating physicians were based upon her subjective complaints of pain and limitations, and were unsupported by any objective medical proof (see Burke v Torres, 8 AD3d 118 [2004]; Jockimo v Abess, 304 AD2d 999, 1000 [2003]; Davis v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 531, 532 [2002]; Stowell v Safee, 251 AD2d 1026 [1998]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 444, 796 N.Y.S.2d 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastman-v-holland-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack