Songer v. Henry W. Muthig, Inc.

131 A.D.2d 657, 516 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48119
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 657 (Songer v. Henry W. Muthig, Inc.) 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
Songer v. Henry W. Muthig, Inc., 131 A.D.2d 657, 516 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated March 21, 1986, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon a finding that the injured plaintiff had not sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is incumbent upon the courts to decide in the first instance whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliot, 57 NY2d 230, 237). In the instant case, the record reveals that the injured plaintiff made a prompt return to full-time employment and that she is not limited from any activity. Significantly, a doctor who treated the injured plaintiff shortly after the accident and prescribed a program of physical therapy for her indicated that her injury would not result in significant disfigurement or permanent disability. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the subject injuries met any of the threshold requirements for serious injury within the meaning of the statute (see, Palmeri v Newson, 118 AD2d 633; D’Iorio v Brancoccio, 115 AD2d 634; De Filippo v White, 101 AD2d 801). The submission of a medical affidavit is not a sine qua non to prevailing on a summary judgment motion predicated upon a failure to establish a serious injury (Ingles v Yurchak, 125 AD2d 452; Padron v Hood, 124 AD2d 718; Popp v Kremer, 124 AD2d 720). Accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Grier v. Kuhn
187 A.D.2d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Pagano v. Kingsbury
182 A.D.2d 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Christianson v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority
157 A.D.2d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Gray v. Steger
150 A.D.2d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Sundack v. Power Test Petro Corp.
150 A.D.2d 440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Covington v. Cinnirella
146 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Garson v. Dowd
143 A.D.2d 113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Palmer v. Amaker
141 A.D.2d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Charles v. United States Fleet Leasing
140 A.D.2d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A.D.2d 657, 516 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/songer-v-henry-w-muthig-inc-nyappdiv-1987.