Thomas v. Roach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Roach

246 A.D.2d 591, 667 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 413

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 591 (Thomas v. Roach) 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

Thomas v. Roach, 246 A.D.2d 591, 667 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 413 (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 (Kohn, J.), entered May 28, 1997, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). While the plaintiff submitted an affidavit by her examining chiropractor characterizing her injury as a “permanent consequential limitation” in her cervical and lumbar regions, the affidavit was prepared more than two years after he last saw the plaintiff and did not indicate that the opinion expressed therein was based upon any recent medical examination of her (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774; O’Neill v Rogers, 163 AD2d 466; Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, 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 (Kohn, J.), entered May 28, 1997, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). While the plaintiff submitted an affidavit by her examining chiropractor characterizing her injury as a “permanent consequential limitation” in her cervical and lumbar regions, the affidavit was prepared more than two years after he last saw the plaintiff and did not indicate that the opinion expressed therein was based upon any recent medical examination of her (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774; O’Neill v Rogers, 163 AD2d 466; Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 591, 667 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-roach-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack