Smith v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Roberts

131 A.D.3d 423, 13 N.Y.S.3d 896

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 11, 2015·No. 15593 305191/11·Published

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]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

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]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Smith v. Roberts, 131 A.D.3d 423, 13 N.Y.S.3d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

131 A.D.3d 423 (Smith v. Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related