Salter v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salter v. New York City Transit Authority

13 A.D.3d 92, 785 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14805

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 92 (Salter v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Salter v. New York City Transit Authority, 13 A.D.3d 92, 785 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lipp[93]*93mann, J.), entered September 25, 2003, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ doctor’s report states that although at the time of the examination plaintiff complained of pain in his right cheekbone, a contusion there had resolved, and the report does not mention any swelling. This sufficed to show, prima facie (see Copeland v Kasalica, 6 AD3d 253 [2004]), that the right cheek swelling, depicted in plaintiffs photographs and claimed to be a “significant disfigurement” within the meaning of the statute, did not exist at the time of the August 2002 exam. Plaintiffs representation, bolstered by affidavits from his mother and a friend, that the swelling “occurred shortly after the [May 2000] accident and continues to this day [August 2003],” does not satisfy his burden of adducing “objective medical proof in competent form to support his claim” (id.). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lipp[93]*93mann, J.), entered September 25, 2003, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ doctor’s report states that although at the time of the examination plaintiff complained of pain in his right cheekbone, a contusion there had resolved, and the report does not mention any swelling. This sufficed to show, prima facie (see Copeland v Kasalica, 6 AD3d 253 [2004]), that the right cheek swelling, depicted in plaintiffs photographs and claimed to be a “significant disfigurement” within the meaning of the statute, did not exist at the time of the August 2002 exam. Plaintiffs representation, bolstered by affidavits from his mother and a friend, that the swelling “occurred shortly after the [May 2000] accident and continues to this day [August 2003],” does not satisfy his burden of adducing “objective medical proof in competent form to support his claim” (id.). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 92, 785 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salter-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack