McNair v. Ofori

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNair v. Ofori

198 A.D.2d 47, 604 N.Y.S.2d 727

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 47 (McNair v. Ofori) 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

McNair v. Ofori, 198 A.D.2d 47, 604 N.Y.S.2d 727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered September 4, 1992, which granted a motion by defendants and third-party plaintiffs and a cross-motion by the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and [48]*48third-party complaint, and denied a cross-motion by plaintiff for partial summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants permissibly used unsworn reports of the plaintiffs doctors, disclosed to defendants by plaintiff (see, Lowe v Bennett, 122 AD2d 728, 729, affd 69 NY2d 700), to demonstrate that plaintiffs claimed "serious injury” was based on conclusory assertions about his condition (see, Cannizzaro v King, 187 AD2d 842, 843), and on subjective assertions of his pain (see, Coon v Brown, 192 AD2d 908, 909). Plaintiff did not show that he was limited in any activities that could be called "daily tasks” (Sole v Kurnik, 119 AD2d 974, 975, lv dismissed 68 NY2d 806), nor did he demonstrate that any of his disabilities persisted for at least 90 days during the 180 days immediately following his accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]).

We have considered the plaintiffs remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered September 4, 1992, which granted a motion by defendants and third-party plaintiffs and a cross-motion by the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and [48]*48third-party complaint, and denied a cross-motion by plaintiff for partial summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants permissibly used unsworn reports of the plaintiffs doctors, disclosed to defendants by plaintiff (see, Lowe v Bennett, 122 AD2d 728, 729, affd 69 NY2d 700), to demonstrate that plaintiffs claimed "serious injury” was based on conclusory assertions about his condition (see, Cannizzaro v King, 187 AD2d 842, 843), and on subjective assertions of his pain (see, Coon v Brown, 192 AD2d 908, 909). Plaintiff did not show that he was limited in any activities that could be called "daily tasks” (Sole v Kurnik, 119 AD2d 974, 975, lv dismissed 68 NY2d 806), nor did he demonstrate that any of his disabilities persisted for at least 90 days during the 180 days immediately following his accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]).

We have considered the plaintiffs remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 47, 604 N.Y.S.2d 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnair-v-ofori-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack