Reid v. Estevez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Estevez

274 A.D.2d 425, 711 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689

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

DecidedJuly 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D.2d 425 (Reid v. Estevez) 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

Reid v. Estevez, 274 A.D.2d 425, 711 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered December 13, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Susan Reid did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Through the affirmations of Drs. Howard B. Reiser and Noah S. Finkel, the defendants established, prima facie, that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Susan Reid were not serious. Those doctors stated that there was no objective clinical evidence to support a finding of either a neurological or an orthopedic disability (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs’ submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, the defendants’ motion was properly granted. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered December 13, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Susan Reid did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Through the affirmations of Drs. Howard B. Reiser and Noah S. Finkel, the defendants established, prima facie, that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Susan Reid were not serious. Those doctors stated that there was no objective clinical evidence to support a finding of either a neurological or an orthopedic disability (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs’ submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, the defendants’ motion was properly granted. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 425, 711 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-estevez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack