Palacios v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palacios v. Lee

291 A.D.2d 387, 736 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1308

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 387 (Palacios v. Lee) 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

Palacios v. Lee, 291 A.D.2d 387, 736 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated March 21, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Juan Jose Palacios 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 of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Juan Jose Palacios were not serious (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The [388]*388defendants submitted the affirmed reports of a neurologist and ah orthopedist, both of whom examined Palacios and concluded that he had not sustained any disability (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). In addition, reports prepared by the plaintiffs’ physician indicated that magnetic resonance imaging examinations performed on Palacios’s cervical spine and lumbar spine were negative.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A physician’s affirmation, which was the only competent medical evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, failed to set forth the objective tests, if any, he performed in reaching his conclusions concerning restrictions in Palacios’s range of motion (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Ritter, Acting P.J., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated March 21, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Juan Jose Palacios 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 of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Juan Jose Palacios were not serious (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The [388]*388defendants submitted the affirmed reports of a neurologist and ah orthopedist, both of whom examined Palacios and concluded that he had not sustained any disability (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). In addition, reports prepared by the plaintiffs’ physician indicated that magnetic resonance imaging examinations performed on Palacios’s cervical spine and lumbar spine were negative.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A physician’s affirmation, which was the only competent medical evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, failed to set forth the objective tests, if any, he performed in reaching his conclusions concerning restrictions in Palacios’s range of motion (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Ritter, Acting P.J., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 387, 736 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palacios-v-lee-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack