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

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 476 (Wierzbicki v. Mathew) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 476, 778 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wierzbicki-v-mathew-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack