Wierzbicki v. Mathew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wierzbicki v. Mathew

8 A.D.3d 476, 778 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8474

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wierzbicki v. Mathew. Read the opinion of the Court — 296 A.D.2d 400 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 14, 2004·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), entered February 23, 2004, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 [477]*477for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs case, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it was a provident exercise of discretion to preclude the admission into evidence of magnetic resonance imaging films in fight of the plaintiffs failure to comply with the requirements of CPLR 4532-a and 22 NYCRR 202.17 (see Neils v Darmochwal, 6 AD3d 589 [2004]; Jemmott v Lazofsky, 5 AD3d 558 [2004]; Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84 [2002]; Grassi v Carolina Barbeque, 254 AD2d 38 [1998]).

The plaintiffs additional contention that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff’s case is without merit. There was no evidence of causation (see Andre v Seem, 234 AD2d 325 [1996]; cf. Bonner v Hill, 302 AD2d 544, 545 [2003]), and there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), entered February 23, 2004, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 [477]*477for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs case, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it was a provident exercise of discretion to preclude the admission into evidence of magnetic resonance imaging films in fight of the plaintiffs failure to comply with the requirements of CPLR 4532-a and 22 NYCRR 202.17 (see Neils v Darmochwal, 6 AD3d 589 [2004]; Jemmott v Lazofsky, 5 AD3d 558 [2004]; Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84 [2002]; Grassi v Carolina Barbeque, 254 AD2d 38 [1998]).

The plaintiffs additional contention that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff’s case is without merit. There was no evidence of causation (see Andre v Seem, 234 AD2d 325 [1996]; cf. Bonner v Hill, 302 AD2d 544, 545 [2003]), and there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Wierzbicki v. Mathew, 8 A.D.3d 476, 778 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

8 A.D.3d 476 (Wierzbicki v. Mathew) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related