Smith v. Roberts
This text of 131 A.D.3d 423 (Smith v. Roberts) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered April 9, 2014, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to his spine and right knee (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to offer evidence of permanent consequential limitations in his knee or spine.
Defendants met their burden on the 90/180-day category via plaintiff’s testimony that he missed three days of work following the accident (see Williams v Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 70 AD3d 522 [1st Dept 2010]). That plaintiff subsequently *424 missed approximately a year of work following surgery that was conducted several months after the accident is not determinative of a 90/180-day injury (see Nicholas v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 116 AD3d 567, 568 [1st Dept 2014]).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
131 A.D.3d 423, 13 N.Y.S.3d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-roberts-nyappdiv-2015.