Reyes v. Esquilin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reyes v. Esquilin

54 A.D.3d 615, 866 N.Y.S.2d 4

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 615 (Reyes v. Esquilin) 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

Reyes v. Esquilin, 54 A.D.3d 615, 866 N.Y.S.2d 4 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered July 5, 2007, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff failed to present objective medical evidence responsive to defendants’ showing that the MRIs of plaintiff taken shortly after the accident revealed only age-related degenerative changes, not any sudden trauma that can be causally related to the accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 579 [2005]; Ronda v Friendly Baptist Church, 52 AD3d 440 [2008]; Becerril [616]*616v Sol Cab Corp., 50 AD3d 261 [2008]). Absent such evidence, it does not avail plaintiffs 90/180-day claim that defendants’ experts did not address his condition during the relevant period of time (see Blackwell v Fraser, 13 AD3d 157, 157 [2004]; cf. Webb v Johnson, 13 AD3d 54, 55 [2004]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, McGuire and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered July 5, 2007, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff failed to present objective medical evidence responsive to defendants’ showing that the MRIs of plaintiff taken shortly after the accident revealed only age-related degenerative changes, not any sudden trauma that can be causally related to the accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 579 [2005]; Ronda v Friendly Baptist Church, 52 AD3d 440 [2008]; Becerril [616]*616v Sol Cab Corp., 50 AD3d 261 [2008]). Absent such evidence, it does not avail plaintiffs 90/180-day claim that defendants’ experts did not address his condition during the relevant period of time (see Blackwell v Fraser, 13 AD3d 157, 157 [2004]; cf. Webb v Johnson, 13 AD3d 54, 55 [2004]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, McGuire and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 615, 866 N.Y.S.2d 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reyes-v-esquilin-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack