Omar v. Goodman
| Decision Date | 10 June 2002 |
| Citation | 295 A.D.2d 413,743 N.Y.S.2d 568 |
| Parties | NAZIFA OMAR, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>LEONA M. GOODMAN et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants met their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236). The plaintiff did not dispute the defendants' contention that she did not sustain a permanent injury or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system.
At issue here is whether the plaintiff, as a result of the accident which occurred on November 23, 1998, sustained a medically determined injury which prevented her from performing substantially all the material acts which constitute her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]).
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted the plaintiff's deposition testimony wherein she acknowledged that at the time of the accident she did not hold regular employment and worked at temporary jobs for two temporary employment agencies. She admitted that in December 1998, she worked for "two or three weeks" at a temporary job. Between December 1998 and July 1999 she worked at yet another job for three days to a week.
The plaintiff acknowledged that she was involved in a prior accident on November 16, 1997, but claimed that she was not injured in that accident and sought no treatment. However, the defendants submitted copies of medical reports from the plaintiff's treating physician stating that she suffered injuries to her head, neck, and lower back in the 1997 accident, sought treatment for those injuries and was still being treated for those injuries in April 1999. These submissions indicate that the plaintiff did in fact sustain injuries in the 1997 accident which were similar to the injuries she claimed to have sustained in the accident in issue. In view of the foregoing the defendants established their entitlement to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sant v. Iglesias
...88 A.D.3d 851, 931 N.Y.S.2d 509 [2d Dept 2011]; Bamundo v Fiero, 88 A.D.3d 831, 931 N.Y.S.2d 239 [2d Dept 2011]; Omar v Goodman, 295 A.D.2d 413, 743 N.Y.S.2d 568 [2d Dept 2002]). Based upon the above evidence submitted, defendants established that plaintiff did not sustain a permanent conse......
-
Thompson v. Bronx Merch. Funding Servs., LLC
...1999). The curtailment of recreational and household activities is insufficient to satisfy the threshold. Omar v. Goodman, 295 A.D.2d 413, 743 N.Y.S.2d 568 (2d Dep't. 2002). In view of the foregoing, plaintiff has failed to put forth credible evidence of any kind to establish that she was c......
-
Williams v. Jones
...out of 180 days following the accident (see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 958, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176 ; Omar v. Goodman, 295 A.D.2d 413, 414, 743 N.Y.S.2d 568 ). Moreover, the restrictions listed by plaintiff are simply not supported by any medical evidence in the record (see Bl......
-
Bishop v. Estevez
... ... 206 A.D.2d 747 [2d Dept 1994]), and she was not even working ... at the time of the accident ( see Omar v Goodman , 295 ... A.D.2d 413 [2d Dept 2002]). YB's bill of particulars ... assertion that she was confined to bed/home for a period of ... ...