Kim v. Kim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kim v. Kim

266 A.D.2d 190, 697 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11102

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 190 (Kim v. Kim) 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

Kim v. Kim, 266 A.D.2d 190, 697 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated October 20, 1998, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Dong Kim and Alan Karl Jacobs for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the infant plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[191]*191Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in ruling that the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the infant plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and that the plaintiffs failed thereafter to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact requiring a trial. The affidavits of the plaintiffs’ physician merely recited the measurements of the infant plaintiffs’ alleged limitations of cervical and lumbar motion that had been obtained 20 months earlier (less than two weeks after the accident). In addition, the physician’s affidavit failed to articulate any opinion as to permanency (see, e.g., Mobley v Riportella, 241 AD2d 443; Gill v O.N.S. Trucking, 239 AD2d 463; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated October 20, 1998, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Dong Kim and Alan Karl Jacobs for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the infant plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[191]*191Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in ruling that the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the infant plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and that the plaintiffs failed thereafter to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact requiring a trial. The affidavits of the plaintiffs’ physician merely recited the measurements of the infant plaintiffs’ alleged limitations of cervical and lumbar motion that had been obtained 20 months earlier (less than two weeks after the accident). In addition, the physician’s affidavit failed to articulate any opinion as to permanency (see, e.g., Mobley v Riportella, 241 AD2d 443; Gill v O.N.S. Trucking, 239 AD2d 463; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 190, 697 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kim-v-kim-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack