Zamore v. Peralta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zamore v. Peralta

50 A.D.3d 423, 855 N.Y.S.2d 480

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

DecidedApril 15, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 423 (Zamore v. Peralta) 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

Zamore v. Peralta, 50 A.D.3d 423, 855 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen [424]*424Stinson, J.), entered October 20, 2006, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict finding that the infant plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her usual and customary activities for at least 90 out of the 180 days following the accident for failure to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff did not provide objective evidence demonstrating that such activities were restricted (see Uddin v Cooper, 32 AD3d 270 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]). Although her attendance may have been irregular, plaintiff was able to return to school within 10 days of the accident.

We find that the jury verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Rivera v 4064 Realty Co., 17 AD3d 201, 203 [2005]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Tom, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen [424]*424Stinson, J.), entered October 20, 2006, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict finding that the infant plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her usual and customary activities for at least 90 out of the 180 days following the accident for failure to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff did not provide objective evidence demonstrating that such activities were restricted (see Uddin v Cooper, 32 AD3d 270 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]). Although her attendance may have been irregular, plaintiff was able to return to school within 10 days of the accident.

We find that the jury verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Rivera v 4064 Realty Co., 17 AD3d 201, 203 [2005]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Tom, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 423, 855 N.Y.S.2d 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zamore-v-peralta-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack