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

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

DecidedApril 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 859 (Reid v. Spivack) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 859, 555 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-spivack-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack