Godden v. Carmen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Godden v. Carmen

169 A.D.2d 812, 565 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 923

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 812 (Godden v. Carmen) 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

Godden v. Carmen, 169 A.D.2d 812, 565 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered March 16, 1988, as granted the defendant Carmen’s motion for summary judg[813]*813ment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious injury in accordance with Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The issue of whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of having sustained a serious injury is one for the court in the first instance (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 237). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and § 5104 (a) since her alleged injury, "acute cervical strain”, did not significantly limit the use of a body function or system nor cause permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member. Accordingly, the court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Jones v Sharpe, 63 NY2d 645; Martini v Asmann, 146 AD2d 571). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, 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 so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered March 16, 1988, as granted the defendant Carmen’s motion for summary judg[813]*813ment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious injury in accordance with Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The issue of whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of having sustained a serious injury is one for the court in the first instance (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 237). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and § 5104 (a) since her alleged injury, "acute cervical strain”, did not significantly limit the use of a body function or system nor cause permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member. Accordingly, the court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Jones v Sharpe, 63 NY2d 645; Martini v Asmann, 146 AD2d 571). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 812, 565 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godden-v-carmen-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack