Hewan v. Callozzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hewan v. Callozzo

223 A.D.2d 425, 636 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 322

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 425 (Hewan v. Callozzo) 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

Hewan v. Callozzo, 223 A.D.2d 425, 636 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about December 5, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the action as to certain plaintiffs for failure to show serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ claims that they were unable to resume daily activities for 90 out of the 180 days following the accident are simply not supported by any proof of confinement, incapacity, or other substantial curtailment of daily activities sufficient to make out a prima facie showing of serious injury (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236, 238-239). Nor do plaintiffs’ affidavits or that of their doctor, based on subjective complaints of pain, demonstrate any permanent injuries (see, Velez v Cohan, 203 AD2d 156). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about December 5, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the action as to certain plaintiffs for failure to show serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ claims that they were unable to resume daily activities for 90 out of the 180 days following the accident are simply not supported by any proof of confinement, incapacity, or other substantial curtailment of daily activities sufficient to make out a prima facie showing of serious injury (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236, 238-239). Nor do plaintiffs’ affidavits or that of their doctor, based on subjective complaints of pain, demonstrate any permanent injuries (see, Velez v Cohan, 203 AD2d 156). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 425, 636 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewan-v-callozzo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack