Rameau v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rameau v. King

245 A.D.2d 557, 666 N.Y.S.2d 513

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 557 (Rameau v. King) 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

Rameau v. King, 245 A.D.2d 557, 666 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 13, 1997, as denied her motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action asserted in the complaint based upon the plaintiff's failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the defendant’s motion is granted.

The evidence submitted by the defendant made out a prima facie case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The only medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion, an affirmed report prepared by the plaintiff’s treating chiropractor, did not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Feintuch v Grella, 209 AD2d 377). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 13, 1997, as denied her motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action asserted in the complaint based upon the plaintiff's failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the defendant’s motion is granted.

The evidence submitted by the defendant made out a prima facie case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The only medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion, an affirmed report prepared by the plaintiff’s treating chiropractor, did not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Feintuch v Grella, 209 AD2d 377). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 557, 666 N.Y.S.2d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rameau-v-king-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack