Oliva v. Gross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oliva v. Gross

29 A.D.3d 551, 816 N.Y.S.2d 110

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

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 551 (Oliva v. Gross) 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

Oliva v. Gross, 29 A.D.3d 551, 816 N.Y.S.2d 110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 20, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). To defeat the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff was required to come forward with competent admissible medical evidence, based on a recent examination and objective findings, sufficient to verify her subjective complaints of pain and limitation of motion (see Farozes v Kamran, 22 AD3d 458 [2005]; Ali v Vasquez, 19 AD3d 520 [2005]; Batista v Olivo, 17 AD3d 494 [2005]). The plaintiff failed to meet her burden in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing as she submitted only the affirmation of her counsel, which was not based on any personal knowledge of the facts, a copy of her own deposition testimony, a copy of a motor vehicle accident report, and color photographs of her damaged vehicle.

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any medical evidence that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily [552]*552activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569 [2000]; Arshad v Gomer, 268 AD2d 450 [2000]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 20, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). To defeat the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff was required to come forward with competent admissible medical evidence, based on a recent examination and objective findings, sufficient to verify her subjective complaints of pain and limitation of motion (see Farozes v Kamran, 22 AD3d 458 [2005]; Ali v Vasquez, 19 AD3d 520 [2005]; Batista v Olivo, 17 AD3d 494 [2005]). The plaintiff failed to meet her burden in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing as she submitted only the affirmation of her counsel, which was not based on any personal knowledge of the facts, a copy of her own deposition testimony, a copy of a motor vehicle accident report, and color photographs of her damaged vehicle.

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any medical evidence that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily [552]*552activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569 [2000]; Arshad v Gomer, 268 AD2d 450 [2000]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 551, 816 N.Y.S.2d 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliva-v-gross-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack