Reid v. Spivack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Spivack

160 A.D.2d 859, 555 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 16, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme [860]*860Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered February 2, 1989, as, upon reargument, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that he had suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the affirmation of the plaintiff’s physician consisted of conclusory allegations based on subjective complaints of pain. Under these circumstances the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the crucial issue of "serious injury” and the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Lowe v Bennett, 122 AD2d 728, 729). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Fiber, 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 so much of an order of the Supreme [860]*860Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered February 2, 1989, as, upon reargument, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that he had suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the affirmation of the plaintiff’s physician consisted of conclusory allegations based on subjective complaints of pain. Under these circumstances the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the crucial issue of "serious injury” and the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Lowe v Bennett, 122 AD2d 728, 729). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Reid v. Spivack, 160 A.D.2d 859, 555 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

160 A.D.2d 859 (Reid v. Spivack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related