Hernandez v. Ramirez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Ramirez

19 A.D.3d 192, 796 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6527

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

DecidedJune 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 192 (Hernandez v. Ramirez) 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

Hernandez v. Ramirez, 19 A.D.3d 192, 796 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 3, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not sustain serious injury to, inter alia, his back, left arm and right knee, within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affirmed medical reports of a neurologist, an orthopedist and a ra[193]*193diologist, based on objective testing, X rays and an MRI, offered the opinion that plaintiff suffered no disability as a consequence of the motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]).

Plaintiffs unaffirmed medical reports and unsworn medical records submitted in opposition lacked probative value and were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to serious injury (James v Yoen Wah Rental, 1 AD3d 237 [2003]; CPLR 2106). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 3, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not sustain serious injury to, inter alia, his back, left arm and right knee, within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affirmed medical reports of a neurologist, an orthopedist and a ra[193]*193diologist, based on objective testing, X rays and an MRI, offered the opinion that plaintiff suffered no disability as a consequence of the motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]).

Plaintiffs unaffirmed medical reports and unsworn medical records submitted in opposition lacked probative value and were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to serious injury (James v Yoen Wah Rental, 1 AD3d 237 [2003]; CPLR 2106). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 192, 796 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-ramirez-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack