Sham v. B&P Chimney Cleaning & Repair Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sham v. B&P Chimney Cleaning & Repair Co.

71 A.D.3d 978, 900 N.Y.S.2d 72

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 978 (Sham v. B&P Chimney Cleaning & Repair Co.) 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

Sham v. B&P Chimney Cleaning & Repair Co., 71 A.D.3d 978, 900 N.Y.S.2d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Harry L. Scutt and Orange Transportation Services appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered July 21, 2009, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the [979]*979ground 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, and the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.

The appellants established, prima facie, through the affirmed report of their expert neurologist and the plaintiffs deposition testimony, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760 [2009]; Berson v Rosada Cab Corp., 62 AD3d 636 [2009]; Byrd v J.R.R. Limo, 61 AD3d 801 [2009]). In opposition, the plaintiffs submissions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. While the plaintiffs treating physician reported that he had treated the plaintiff from August 8, 2007, about one month after the accident, until February 8, 2008, and had most recently examined her on March 17, 2009, he only recorded the results of the objective testing he performed at the initial visit on August 8, 2007. Any subjective complaints of pain and limitation of motion must be substantiated by verified objective medical findings (see Dantini v Cuffie, 59 AD3d 490 [2009]; Villeda v Cassas, 56 AD3d 762 [2008]), based on a recent examination of the plaintiff (see Johnson v Berger, 56 AD3d 725 [2008]; D’Alba v Yong-Ae Choi, 33 AD3d 650 [2006]; Oliva v Gross, 29 AD3d 551 [2006]). Similarly, any projections of permanence have no probative value in the absence of a recent examination (see Cornelius v Cintas Corp., 50 AD3d 1085 [2008]). Furthermore, the plaintiff also failed to produce objective medical evidence to substantiate the existence of an injury which limited her usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident (see Laguerre v Chavarria, 41 AD3d 437 [2007]; McConnell v Ouedraogo, 24 AD3d 423 [2005]; Davis v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 531 [2002]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Harry L. Scutt and Orange Transportation Services appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered July 21, 2009, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the [979]*979ground 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, and the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.

The appellants established, prima facie, through the affirmed report of their expert neurologist and the plaintiffs deposition testimony, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760 [2009]; Berson v Rosada Cab Corp., 62 AD3d 636 [2009]; Byrd v J.R.R. Limo, 61 AD3d 801 [2009]). In opposition, the plaintiffs submissions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. While the plaintiffs treating physician reported that he had treated the plaintiff from August 8, 2007, about one month after the accident, until February 8, 2008, and had most recently examined her on March 17, 2009, he only recorded the results of the objective testing he performed at the initial visit on August 8, 2007. Any subjective complaints of pain and limitation of motion must be substantiated by verified objective medical findings (see Dantini v Cuffie, 59 AD3d 490 [2009]; Villeda v Cassas, 56 AD3d 762 [2008]), based on a recent examination of the plaintiff (see Johnson v Berger, 56 AD3d 725 [2008]; D’Alba v Yong-Ae Choi, 33 AD3d 650 [2006]; Oliva v Gross, 29 AD3d 551 [2006]). Similarly, any projections of permanence have no probative value in the absence of a recent examination (see Cornelius v Cintas Corp., 50 AD3d 1085 [2008]). Furthermore, the plaintiff also failed to produce objective medical evidence to substantiate the existence of an injury which limited her usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident (see Laguerre v Chavarria, 41 AD3d 437 [2007]; McConnell v Ouedraogo, 24 AD3d 423 [2005]; Davis v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 531 [2002]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 978, 900 N.Y.S.2d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sham-v-bp-chimney-cleaning-repair-co-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack