Gnahore v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gnahore v. Gonzalez

73 A.D.3d 690, 899 N.Y.S.2d 673

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

DecidedMay 4, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 690 (Gnahore v. Gonzalez) 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

Gnahore v. Gonzalez, 73 A.D.3d 690, 899 N.Y.S.2d 673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated June 24, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting the report of her expert orthopedist and the plaintiffs own deposition testimony, which together established that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761 [2009]; Berson v Rosada Cab Corp., 62 AD3d 636, 636-637 [2009]; Byrd v J.R.R. Limo, 61 AD3d 801, 802 [2009]). On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the affirmation of the defendant’s expert orthopedist was not in proper form. By not raising that argument in the Supreme Court, however, the plaintiff waived it (see Kibler v Gillard Constr., Inc., 53 AD3d 1040, 1042 [2008]; Christopherson v Queens-Long Is. Med. Group, P.C., 17 AD3d [691]*691393, 394 [2005]; Scudera v Mahbubur, 299 AD2d 535 [2002]). The plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to the motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Among other things, the plaintiff submitted unaffirmed and uncertified medical reports and records, and failed to adequately explain the lapse in time between the cessation of his medical treatments and the re-examination for the purposes of opposing the defendant’s summary judgment motion (see Rivera v Bushwick Ridgewood Props., Inc., 63 AD3d 712, 714 [2009]; Ponciano v Schaefer, 59 AD3d 605, 606-607 [2009]; Gastaldi v Chen, 56 AD3d 420, 420421 [2008]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, 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, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated June 24, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting the report of her expert orthopedist and the plaintiffs own deposition testimony, which together established that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761 [2009]; Berson v Rosada Cab Corp., 62 AD3d 636, 636-637 [2009]; Byrd v J.R.R. Limo, 61 AD3d 801, 802 [2009]). On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the affirmation of the defendant’s expert orthopedist was not in proper form. By not raising that argument in the Supreme Court, however, the plaintiff waived it (see Kibler v Gillard Constr., Inc., 53 AD3d 1040, 1042 [2008]; Christopherson v Queens-Long Is. Med. Group, P.C., 17 AD3d [691]*691393, 394 [2005]; Scudera v Mahbubur, 299 AD2d 535 [2002]). The plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to the motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Among other things, the plaintiff submitted unaffirmed and uncertified medical reports and records, and failed to adequately explain the lapse in time between the cessation of his medical treatments and the re-examination for the purposes of opposing the defendant’s summary judgment motion (see Rivera v Bushwick Ridgewood Props., Inc., 63 AD3d 712, 714 [2009]; Ponciano v Schaefer, 59 AD3d 605, 606-607 [2009]; Gastaldi v Chen, 56 AD3d 420, 420421 [2008]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 690, 899 N.Y.S.2d 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gnahore-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack