Cruz v. Calabiza

Decision Date23 April 1996
Citation226 A.D.2d 242,641 N.Y.S.2d 255
PartiesJosefina CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jesus CALABIZA, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Carlie Draper, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert D. Grundfast, for defendants-respondents.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, ELLERIN, NARDELLI and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered August 11, 1995, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly held that the affidavits submitted by plaintiff and her treating physicians, which make only general references to the alleged pain plaintiff continues to suffer and the alleged permanency of her condition, and which fail to specify either the nature of the limitations on the use of any body functions or organs or to state with particularity how the alleged pain affects plaintiff's routine daily activities, were insufficient to overcome defendants' prima facie showing that plaintiff's injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; Klapper v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 127 A.D.2d 566, 511 N.Y.S.2d 547; Icompare, Mooney v. Ovitt, 100 A.D.2d 702, 474 N.Y.S.2d 618).

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Noble v. Ackerman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 9, 1998
    ...specify how the pain limits the use of a body function or organ, or affects his or her routine daily activities (see, Cruz v. Calabiza, 226 A.D.2d 242, 641 N.Y.S.2d 255). In the case at bar, plaintiff's testimony concerning his physical limitations was unspecific and partially impeached, an......
  • Eteng v. Dajos Transp., INDEX NUMBER: 304049/2008
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 9, 2010
    ...and customary activities were impaired in some significant way for 90 out of the first 180 days after the accident. Cruz v. Calabiza, 641 N.Y.S.2d 255 (1st Dept. 1996). The claim must be supported by "competent medical proof that directly substantiated the claim". Cruz v. Apònte, 874 N.Y.S.......
  • Vega v. Torres
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • May 17, 2016
    ...and customary activities were impaired in some significant way for 90 out of the first 180 days after the accident. Cruz v. Calabiza, 641 N.Y.S.2d 255 (1st Dept. 1996). The claim must be supported by "competent medical proof that directly substantiated the claim". Cruz v. Aponte, 874 N.Y.S.......
  • Adusei v. Aburekhanlen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 3, 2017
    ...and customary activities were impaired in some significant way for 90 out of the first 180 days after the accident. Cruz v. Calabiza, 641 N.Y.S.2d 255 (1st Dept. 1996). The claim must be supported by "competent medical proof that directly substantiated the claim". Cruz v. Aponte, 874 N.Y.S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT