Rodriguez v. Herbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Herbert

34 A.D.3d 345, 825 N.Y.S.2d 37

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 345 (Rodriguez v. Herbert) 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

Rodriguez v. Herbert, 34 A.D.3d 345, 825 N.Y.S.2d 37 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 24, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even though the time plaintiff spent under treatment by different physicians after his accident exceeds 90 days, he failed to establish, by competent medical evidence, that during this period he was prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts constituting his customary daily activities during at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 100-101 [2005]). Plaintiffs deposition testimony excerpts are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 24, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even though the time plaintiff spent under treatment by different physicians after his accident exceeds 90 days, he failed to establish, by competent medical evidence, that during this period he was prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts constituting his customary daily activities during at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 100-101 [2005]). Plaintiffs deposition testimony excerpts are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 345, 825 N.Y.S.2d 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-herbert-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack