Paczhowski v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paczhowski v. Santiago

5 A.D.3d 575, 772 N.Y.S.2d 847

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 575 (Paczhowski v. Santiago) 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

Paczhowski v. Santiago, 5 A.D.3d 575, 772 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated March 12, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant 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]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs physician submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion failed to establish that any of the identified limitations in movement were of a significant nature (see Trotter v Hart, 285 AD2d 772, 773 [2001]; Baker v Donahue, 199 AD2d 661 [1993]; Waldman v Dong Kook Chang, 175 AD2d 204 [1991]; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assoc., 239 AD2d 394 [1997]), and was otherwise inadequate to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment in his favor dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated March 12, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant 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]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs physician submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion failed to establish that any of the identified limitations in movement were of a significant nature (see Trotter v Hart, 285 AD2d 772, 773 [2001]; Baker v Donahue, 199 AD2d 661 [1993]; Waldman v Dong Kook Chang, 175 AD2d 204 [1991]; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assoc., 239 AD2d 394 [1997]), and was otherwise inadequate to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment in his favor dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 575, 772 N.Y.S.2d 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paczhowski-v-santiago-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack