Santiago v. Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Gomez

293 A.D.2d 665, 740 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3955

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 22, 2002·Published

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered June 29, 2001, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiffs’ only medical expert from testifying, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiffs’ only expert medical witness from testifying since, under the circumstances of this case, such testimony would have been of no probative value (see Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455; see also Greco v Jackson, 287 AD2d 539, 540; Diaz v Wiggins, 271 AD2d 639, 640). The court also properly dismissed the complaint since the plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case of serious injury (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Baptiste v Feliciano, 275 AD2d 385).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered June 29, 2001, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiffs’ only medical expert from testifying, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiffs’ only expert medical witness from testifying since, under the circumstances of this case, such testimony would have been of no probative value (see Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455; see also Greco v Jackson, 287 AD2d 539, 540; Diaz v Wiggins, 271 AD2d 639, 640). The court also properly dismissed the complaint since the plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case of serious injury (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Baptiste v Feliciano, 275 AD2d 385).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Santiago v. Gomez, 293 A.D.2d 665, 740 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

293 A.D.2d 665 (Santiago v. Gomez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related