Sloan v. Schoen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sloan v. Schoen

251 A.D.2d 319, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6344

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

DecidedJune 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 319 (Sloan v. Schoen) 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

Sloan v. Schoen, 251 A.D.2d 319, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated September 25, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The reports authored by Dr. Anthony S. Horvath and Dr. John W. Shepard, both of which were affirmed under penalties of perjury, made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

The only submission presented by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s motion, the bare affirmation of the plaintiff’s [320]*320attorney, who demonstrated no personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s injuries, was without evidentiary value and thus failed to overcome the defendant’s showing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated September 25, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The reports authored by Dr. Anthony S. Horvath and Dr. John W. Shepard, both of which were affirmed under penalties of perjury, made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

The only submission presented by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s motion, the bare affirmation of the plaintiff’s [320]*320attorney, who demonstrated no personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s injuries, was without evidentiary value and thus failed to overcome the defendant’s showing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 319, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloan-v-schoen-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack