Williams v. Tillak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Tillak

251 A.D.2d 657, 675 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7956

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 657 (Williams v. Tillak) 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

Williams v. Tillak, 251 A.D.2d 657, 675 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 16, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the plaintiffs failure 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 plaintiff sought to recover damages by claiming that she suffered a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In order to establish that she suffered such a “significant limitation”, the plaintiff was required to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation and its duration (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). The affidavits authored by the plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Kathleen R. Watson, failed to specify the extent or degree of the plaintiffs alleged limitation. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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 (Durante, J.), dated January 16, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the plaintiffs failure 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 plaintiff sought to recover damages by claiming that she suffered a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In order to establish that she suffered such a “significant limitation”, the plaintiff was required to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation and its duration (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). The affidavits authored by the plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Kathleen R. Watson, failed to specify the extent or degree of the plaintiffs alleged limitation. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 657, 675 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-tillak-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack