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

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

DecidedApril 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 665 (Santiago v. Gomez) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 665, 740 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-gomez-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack