Weber v. Harbus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weber v. Harbus

212 A.D.2d 525, 623 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1109

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 525 (Weber v. Harbus) 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

Weber v. Harbus, 212 A.D.2d 525, 623 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated August 31, 1993, which denied his 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 Michael Weber failed to establish that he had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The only medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs was an affidavit of Michael Weber’s treating physician which was conclusory in nature, did not specify any quantifiable limitation of Weber’s abilities, was based merely upon Weber’s subjective complaints of pain, and was clearly tailored to meet the statutory requirements (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Stallone v County of Suffolk, 209 AD2d 403; DuMont v Sandhir, 201 AD2d 450; McHaffie v Antieri, 190 AD2d 780). Thus, the affidavit was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated August 31, 1993, which denied his 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 Michael Weber failed to establish that he had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The only medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs was an affidavit of Michael Weber’s treating physician which was conclusory in nature, did not specify any quantifiable limitation of Weber’s abilities, was based merely upon Weber’s subjective complaints of pain, and was clearly tailored to meet the statutory requirements (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Stallone v County of Suffolk, 209 AD2d 403; DuMont v Sandhir, 201 AD2d 450; McHaffie v Antieri, 190 AD2d 780). Thus, the affidavit was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 525, 623 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-harbus-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack