Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, Inc.

215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 4, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 149 (Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, Inc.) 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
Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, Inc., 215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 9, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs complaint, unanimously reversed, on [150]*150the law, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint granted, without costs.

It was error for the IAS Court to determine that plaintiff made a prima facie showing here that he had sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff failed to set forth competent medical evidence based upon objective medical findings and diagnostic tests to support his claim that he sustained permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; instead he merely offered subjective complaints of pain, which absent other proof is insufficient to establish a "serious injury” (Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957; McLoyrd v Pennypacker, 178 AD2d 227, 228, Iv denied 79 NY2d 754; Deangelo v Marcia Serv. Corp., 199 AD2d 58; Estrada v Holmes, 183 AD2d 436). Plaintiff’s physician’s affirmations even failed to mention plaintiff’s preexisting multiple sclerosis.

Nor did plaintiff raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment such that he was prevented from performing substantially all of his usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Gaddy v Eyler, supra, at 958; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 238; McNair v Ofori, 198 AD2d 47, 48; Hutchinson v Beth Cab Corp., 204 AD2d 151, 152). Contrary to his claim of "serious injury”, plaintiff admitted, inter alia, that he resumed his part-time employment within a month after the accident, which occurred in April 1989; that he obtained summer employment shortly thereafter; and that he completed work on his undergraduate degree the semester following the accident. Concur—Rubin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Brusso v. Imbeault
699 F. Supp. 2d 567 (W.D. New York, 2010)
Uddin v. Cooper
32 A.D.3d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Wallingford v. Perez
11 A.D.3d 390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Bowen v. Dunn
306 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Temple v. Doherty
301 A.D.2d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Drexler v. Melanson
301 A.D.2d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Wahl v. Lothiam
235 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Arrowood v. Lowinger
294 A.D.2d 315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Trotter v. Hart
285 A.D.2d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Chapman v. Capoccia
283 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Jones v. Norwich City School District
283 A.D.2d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Sorriento v. Daddario
282 A.D.2d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Graham v. Shuttle Bay, Inc.
281 A.D.2d 372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Walker v. Betts Cab Corp.
272 A.D.2d 179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Kristel v. Mitchell
270 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Evans v. Beebe
267 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Calcagno v. New York City Transit Authority
266 A.D.2d 421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Feinman v. Horowitz
264 A.D.2d 371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Cody v. Parker
263 A.D.2d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Congdon v. Preisman
263 A.D.2d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisen-v-walter-samuels-inc-nyappdiv-1995.