Slasor v. Elfaiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slasor v. Elfaiz

275 A.D.2d 771, 713 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9435

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 771 (Slasor v. Elfaiz) 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

Slasor v. Elfaiz, 275 A.D.2d 771, 713 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated September 29, .1999, which granted the defendants’ 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Turchuk v Town of Wallkill, 255 AD2d 576). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that she sustained a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs doctor failed to set forth what objective tests, if any, were used to examine the plaintiff (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79), and failed to specify the degree of the plaintiffs limitation of motion (see, Tabacco v Kasten, 229 AD2d 526; Ahmed v Jaekyoo Yoo, 255 AD2d 345). In addition, the doctor did not explain the almost 21/2-year gap in treatment between the accident and the most recent medical exam (see, Grossman v Wright, supra). Mangano, P. J., Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated September 29, .1999, which granted the defendants’ 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Turchuk v Town of Wallkill, 255 AD2d 576). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that she sustained a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs doctor failed to set forth what objective tests, if any, were used to examine the plaintiff (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79), and failed to specify the degree of the plaintiffs limitation of motion (see, Tabacco v Kasten, 229 AD2d 526; Ahmed v Jaekyoo Yoo, 255 AD2d 345). In addition, the doctor did not explain the almost 21/2-year gap in treatment between the accident and the most recent medical exam (see, Grossman v Wright, supra). Mangano, P. J., Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 771, 713 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slasor-v-elfaiz-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack