Raitport v. Travelers Companies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raitport v. Travelers Companies

209 A.D.2d 363, 619 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11796

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 363 (Raitport v. Travelers Companies) 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

Raitport v. Travelers Companies, 209 A.D.2d 363, 619 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New [364]*364York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 28, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that plaintiff failed to submit competent evidence, in the form of affidavits or professional affirmation (CPLR 2106) or sworn physicians’ reports, sufficient to set forth a prima facie showing of "serious injury” under Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Rodriguez v Goldstein, 182 AD2d 396). Furthermore, plaintiff’s unsworn conclusory statements that he had a "loss of gainful' activity for 3 years” failed to show that he was sufficiently prevented from performing his usual activities during the 90/180-day period following the accident (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New [364]*364York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 28, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that plaintiff failed to submit competent evidence, in the form of affidavits or professional affirmation (CPLR 2106) or sworn physicians’ reports, sufficient to set forth a prima facie showing of "serious injury” under Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Rodriguez v Goldstein, 182 AD2d 396). Furthermore, plaintiff’s unsworn conclusory statements that he had a "loss of gainful' activity for 3 years” failed to show that he was sufficiently prevented from performing his usual activities during the 90/180-day period following the accident (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 363, 619 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raitport-v-travelers-companies-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack