Evans v. Mohammad

243 A.D.2d 604, 663 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10259
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 604 (Evans v. Mohammad) 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
Evans v. Mohammad, 243 A.D.2d 604, 663 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 10, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, affidavits of their chiropractor, Joseph Shtab, who averred that as a result of the [605]*605accident each plaintiff suffered objectively-measured degrees of limitation in the range of motion of their respective necks and backs. It was Shtab’s opinion that the damage to the plaintiffs’ respective spinal and muscular systems, with the consequent restrictions of mobility, was permanent. However, it appears that the only time he examined either plaintiff was on November 29, 1994, some 11 days after their accident. Shtab’s projections of permanent limitations have no probative value in the absence of a recent examination. The plaintiffs’ unsworn doctors’ reports, which were appended to Shtab’s affidavits, are undated, with the result that “there was insufficient proof of the duration of the alleged impairment(s)” so to create a triable issue of fact with respect to whether either of the plaintiffs suffered a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774, 775; see, e.g., Letellier v Walker, 222 AD2d 658; Atkins v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 222 AD2d 390; Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Moore v. Edison
25 A.D.3d 672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
McKinney v. Lane
288 A.D.2d 274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Frier v. Teague
288 A.D.2d 177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Hand v. Bonura
283 A.D.2d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Tobiolo v. Friedman
283 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Sauer v. Marks
278 A.D.2d 301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Foley v. Karvelis
276 A.D.2d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Bidetto v. Williams
276 A.D.2d 516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Kauderer v. Penta
261 A.D.2d 365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 604, 663 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-mohammad-nyappdiv-1997.