Manon v. Doucoure

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manon v. Doucoure

59 A.D.3d 304, 873 N.Y.S.2d 605

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 304 (Manon v. Doucoure) 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

Manon v. Doucoure, 59 A.D.3d 304, 873 N.Y.S.2d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie ManzanetDaniels, J.), entered December 17, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury of either a permanent or a nonpermanent nature by submitting medical evidence indicating that his spinal and shoulder injuries had resolved within two months after the accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to adequately explain the three-year gap in his treatment (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]). As to the “90/180” category, plaintiff failed to support his claim with objective evidence of a “medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Toure at 357). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie ManzanetDaniels, J.), entered December 17, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury of either a permanent or a nonpermanent nature by submitting medical evidence indicating that his spinal and shoulder injuries had resolved within two months after the accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to adequately explain the three-year gap in his treatment (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]). As to the “90/180” category, plaintiff failed to support his claim with objective evidence of a “medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Toure at 357). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 304, 873 N.Y.S.2d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manon-v-doucoure-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack