Valencia v. Siu-Ke Lui

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valencia v. Siu-Ke Lui

239 A.D.2d 339, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4597

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 339 (Valencia v. Siu-Ke Lui) 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

Valencia v. Siu-Ke Lui, 239 A.D.2d 339, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated February 23, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to 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 defendants’ motion papers made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. The only proof submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was the affirmation of a chiropractor. Since the affirmation of a chiropractor does not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Feintuch v Grella, 209 AD2d 377), the plaintiff has failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated February 23, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to 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 defendants’ motion papers made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. The only proof submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was the affirmation of a chiropractor. Since the affirmation of a chiropractor does not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Feintuch v Grella, 209 AD2d 377), the plaintiff has failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 339, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valencia-v-siu-ke-lui-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack