Zito v. Lezi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zito v. Lezi

37 A.D.3d 164, 828 N.Y.S.2d 398

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 164 (Zito v. Lezi) 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

Zito v. Lezi, 37 A.D.3d 164, 828 N.Y.S.2d 398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J), entered December 19, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that plaintiff had not suffered serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Defendants submitted the affirmation of an orthopedic surgeon, who, based upon his examination of plaintiff and objective medical tests, concluded that plaintiff had not suffered permanent consequential limitation or significant loss or impairment of the function of her neck, back or left knee by reason of the alleged automobile accident. Plaintiff failed to meet her consequent burden to adduce evidence showing an objective medical basis for her claim of serious injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Suarez v Abe, 4 AD3d 288 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J), entered December 19, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that plaintiff had not suffered serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Defendants submitted the affirmation of an orthopedic surgeon, who, based upon his examination of plaintiff and objective medical tests, concluded that plaintiff had not suffered permanent consequential limitation or significant loss or impairment of the function of her neck, back or left knee by reason of the alleged automobile accident. Plaintiff failed to meet her consequent burden to adduce evidence showing an objective medical basis for her claim of serious injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Suarez v Abe, 4 AD3d 288 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 164, 828 N.Y.S.2d 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zito-v-lezi-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack