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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 1994·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New [364] York 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] York 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.

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

209 A.D.2d 363 (Raitport v. Travelers Companies) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related