Magras v. Colasuonno

278 A.D.2d 388, 717 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13195
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 388 (Magras v. Colasuonno) 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
Magras v. Colasuonno, 278 A.D.2d 388, 717 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinions

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated June 20, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of damages, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $20,000.

Ordered that judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The only medical testimony offered at trial was that of the plaintiffs treating chiropractor. Although the chiropractor testified that the plaintiff sustained a herniated disc, he conceded that this conclusion was based on the inadmissible reports of other doctors who did not testify (see, Merisca v Alford, 243 AD2d 613; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266, 267). In addition, while the chiropractor quantified certain limitations of motion of the plaintiffs lumbar spine, he failed to identify any objective tests used to arrive at [389]*389his conclusions (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

DeLuca v. Ding Ju Liu
297 A.D.2d 307 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Wagman v. Bradshaw
292 A.D.2d 84 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 388, 717 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magras-v-colasuonno-nyappdiv-2000.