Estrada v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estrada v. Holmes

183 A.D.2d 436

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

DecidedMay 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 436 (Estrada v. Holmes) 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

Estrada v. Holmes, 183 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered April 10, 1991, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case of serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5104 (a). The record reveals that plaintiff lost only one day of work and resumed his regular job responsibilities within several days after the accident. Plaintiff’s treating chiropractor’s conclusory opinion that plaintiff "sustained a significant limitation of use of a described body function which will continue for an indefinite period of time” was based upon subjective complaints of recurrent pain, not upon objective medical findings sufficient to establish serious injury within the meaning of the statute (see, Solarzano v Power Test Petro, 181 AD2d 631; O’Neill v Rogers, 163 AD2d 466). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered April 10, 1991, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case of serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5104 (a). The record reveals that plaintiff lost only one day of work and resumed his regular job responsibilities within several days after the accident. Plaintiff’s treating chiropractor’s conclusory opinion that plaintiff "sustained a significant limitation of use of a described body function which will continue for an indefinite period of time” was based upon subjective complaints of recurrent pain, not upon objective medical findings sufficient to establish serious injury within the meaning of the statute (see, Solarzano v Power Test Petro, 181 AD2d 631; O’Neill v Rogers, 163 AD2d 466). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estrada-v-holmes-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack