Rainey v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rainey v. Smith

300 A.D.2d 383, 750 N.Y.S.2d 780

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 383 (Rainey v. Smith) 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

Rainey v. Smith, 300 A.D.2d 383, 750 N.Y.S.2d 780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered November 13, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the affirmed reports of a neurologist and an orthopedist, who both examined the plaintiff and found that she had no disability (see Duldulao v City of New York, 284 AD2d 296; Meric v Cancela, 275 AD2d 309).

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion was neither sworn to nor affirmed to be true [384]*384under penalty of perjury, and thus did not constitute competent evidence (see Meric v Cancela, supra). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, 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, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered November 13, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the affirmed reports of a neurologist and an orthopedist, who both examined the plaintiff and found that she had no disability (see Duldulao v City of New York, 284 AD2d 296; Meric v Cancela, 275 AD2d 309).

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion was neither sworn to nor affirmed to be true [384]*384under penalty of perjury, and thus did not constitute competent evidence (see Meric v Cancela, supra). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 383, 750 N.Y.S.2d 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainey-v-smith-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack