Ryan v. Lee Xuda

243 A.D.2d 457, 663 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9350
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 6, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 457 (Ryan v. Lee Xuda) 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
Ryan v. Lee Xuda, 243 A.D.2d 457, 663 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Bangs County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 5, 1996, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). It was therefore incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff tendered proof of serious injury in inadmissible form; namely, unsworn doctors reports, and unsworn results of medical tests (see, Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). Although the plaintiff submitted his own affidavit claiming an inability to engage in his customary daily activities, he did not submit a physician’s [458]*458affidavit substantiating the existence of a “medically determined” injury producing the alleged impairment of his activities (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Traugott v Konig, 184 AD2d 765). Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rodriguez v. Saul
2024 NY Slip Op 32385(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Toure v. Sanogo
2024 NY Slip Op 30116(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Damas v. Valdes
84 A.D.3d 87 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Howard v. King
307 A.D.2d 278 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Keena v. Trappen
294 A.D.2d 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Connors v. Center City, Inc.
291 A.D.2d 476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Locascio v. Yin Gen Quan
288 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Fiorentino v. Landau
288 A.D.2d 342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Collazo v. Jun Yong Kim
288 A.D.2d 173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Pagan v. Advance Storage & Moving
287 A.D.2d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Suk Hee Won v. Jung Woo Kang
287 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Kahn v. Ramsarran
286 A.D.2d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Donisi v. Henderson
279 A.D.2d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Paulino v. Xiaoyu Dai
279 A.D.2d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Butler v. New York City Transit Authority
279 A.D.2d 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Herman v. Church
276 A.D.2d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Linares v. Mompoint
273 A.D.2d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Welcome v. Diab
273 A.D.2d 377 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Krakofsky v. Fox-Rizzi
273 A.D.2d 277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Jackson v. New York City Transit Authority
273 A.D.2d 200 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 457, 663 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-lee-xuda-nyappdiv-1997.