Weinberg v. Okapi Taxi, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinberg v. Okapi Taxi, Inc.

73 A.D.3d 439, 899 N.Y.S.2d 597

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

DecidedMay 4, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 439 (Weinberg v. Okapi Taxi, 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

Weinberg v. Okapi Taxi, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 439, 899 N.Y.S.2d 597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered March 6, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to rebut defendants’ prima facie showing that there was no “permanent consequential limitation” or “significant limitation” of use of his ankle (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Plaintiffs orthopedist consistently reported a full range of motion of the ankle. Plaintiff claims limitations as to prolonged standing, walking, kneeling, or sitting, but he sets forth no objective basis for comparing these limitations “to the normal function, purpose and use of the affected body organ, member, function or system” (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]). Nor does he address the degenerative changes noted in the X-ray report from the emergency room or the opinion of defendants’ expert that plaintiffs injuries predated the accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 579-580 [2005]). Plaintiff also submitted no objective medical proof that he could not perform substantially all his daily activities for 90 of the first 180 days following the accident (see Rossi v Alhassan, 48 AD3d 270 [2008]). His claimed inability to work for more than 90 days is not dispositive of the existence of a 90/180 category injury (Uddin v Cooper, 32 AD3d 270, 271 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, McGuire and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History; 2009 NY Slip Op 3049KU).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered March 6, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to rebut defendants’ prima facie showing that there was no “permanent consequential limitation” or “significant limitation” of use of his ankle (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Plaintiffs orthopedist consistently reported a full range of motion of the ankle. Plaintiff claims limitations as to prolonged standing, walking, kneeling, or sitting, but he sets forth no objective basis for comparing these limitations “to the normal function, purpose and use of the affected body organ, member, function or system” (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]). Nor does he address the degenerative changes noted in the X-ray report from the emergency room or the opinion of defendants’ expert that plaintiffs injuries predated the accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 579-580 [2005]). Plaintiff also submitted no objective medical proof that he could not perform substantially all his daily activities for 90 of the first 180 days following the accident (see Rossi v Alhassan, 48 AD3d 270 [2008]). His claimed inability to work for more than 90 days is not dispositive of the existence of a 90/180 category injury (Uddin v Cooper, 32 AD3d 270, 271 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, McGuire and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History; 2009 NY Slip Op 3049KU).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 439, 899 N.Y.S.2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinberg-v-okapi-taxi-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack