Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1995 |
| Citation | 626 N.Y.S.2d 109,215 A.D.2d 149 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Daniel EISEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WALTER & SAMUELS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
C.M. Metzner, for defendant-appellant.
Before RUBIN, J.P., and ROSS, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS and TOM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 9, 1994, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint granted, without costs.
It was error for the IAS court to determine that plaintiff made a prima facie showing here that he had sustained a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Plaintiff failed to set forth competent medical evidence based upon objective medical findings and diagnostic tests to support his claim that he sustained permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; instead he merely offered subjective complaints of pain, which absent other proof is insufficient to establish a "serious injury" (Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; McLoyrd v. Pennypacker, 178 A.D.2d 227, 228, 577 N.Y.S.2d 272, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 754, 581 N.Y.S.2d 665, 590 N.E.2d 250; Deangelo v. Marcia Serv. Corp., 199 A.D.2d 58, 605 N.Y.S.2d 31; Estrada v. Holmes, 183 A.D.2d 436, 583 N.Y.S.2d 273). Plaintiff's physician's affirmations even failed to mention plaintiff's pre-existing multiple sclerosis.
Nor did plaintiff raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment such that he was prevented from performing substantially all of his usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident (Insurance Law § 5102[d]; Gaddy v. Eyler, supra, at 958, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 238, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088; McNair v. Ofori, 198 A.D.2d 47, 48, 604 N.Y.S.2d 727; Hutchinson v. Beth Cab Corp., 204 A.D.2d 151, 152, 612 N.Y.S.2d 10). Contrary to his claim of "serious injury", plaintiff admitted, inter alia, that he resumed his part-time employment within a month after the accident, which occurred in April 1989; that he obtained summer employment shortly thereafter; and that he completed work on his undergraduate degree the semester following the accident.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brusso v. Imbeault
...to rebut defendant's evidence that plaintiff's injuries were caused by a preexisting condition); Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, Inc., 215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 109, 109 (1st Dep't 1995) (granting summary judgment on issue of serious injury, noting, inter alia, “plaintiff's physician's affirm......
-
McHugh v. Martin
...claim * * * ' of a serious injury (Tankersley v. Szesnat, 235 A.D.2d 1010, 1012, 653 N.Y.S.2d 184, quoting Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, 215 A.D.2d 149, 150, 626 N.Y.S.2d 109)." (Trotter v. Hart, 285 A.D.2d 772, 728 N.Y.S.2d 561, 562 [3rd Dept 2001]) However, it is well settled that "mere subj......
-
Calcagno v. New York City Transit Authority
...complaints of pain contained in his affidavit (see, Orr v. Miner, 220 A.D.2d 567, 568, 632 N.Y.S.2d 633; Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, 215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 109), and the affirmation of the plaintiff's physician, which was based upon an examination conducted almost six years earlier (se......
-
Wahl v. Lothiam, 01 CV 6439(VM).
...must present "competent medical evidence based upon objective medical findings and diagnostic tests." Eisen v. Walter & Samuels, 215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 109, 109 (1995). Here, both sides appear to concede that the physical injuries sustained by Wahl in the accident would not qualify as......