Little v. Locoh
Decision Date | 16 March 2010 |
Parties | Richaun LITTLE, appellant, v. Fogan LOCOH, et al., respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
71 A.D.3d 837
Richaun LITTLE, appellant,
v.
Fogan LOCOH, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 16, 2010.
Edelman, Krasin & Jaye, PLLC, Carle Place, N.Y. (Thomas S. Russo of counsel), for appellant.
James Hiebler (Shayne, Dachs, Corker, Sauer & Dachs, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. [Jonathan A. Dachs], of counsel), for respondent Fogan Locoh.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill and Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for respondent Gloria Moultrie.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated March 20, 2009, which granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants met their prima facie burdens of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The ambulance call report, hospital records, the reports of Drs. S.K. Reddy and Paul S. Raphael, and the therapy notes which the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the defendants' motions were unaffirmed and/or uncertified. Therefore, those submissions were without probative value and were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 580 N.Y.S.2d 178, 588 N.E.2d 76; Maffei v. Santiago, 63 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 886 N.Y.S.2d 29; Niles v. Lam Pakie Ho, 61 A.D.3d 657, 658, 877 N.Y.S.2d 139; Uribe-Zapata v. Capallan, 54 A.D.3d 936, 937, 864 N.Y.S.2d 118; Patterson v. N.Y. Alarm Response Corp., 45 A.D.3d 656, 656, 850 N.Y.S.2d 114; Verette v. Zia, 44 A.D.3d 747, 748, 844 N.Y.S.2d 71;
Nociforo v. Penna, 42 A.D.3d 514...To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stout v. 1 East 66th St. Corp.
...167; [935 N.Y.S.2d 57] Osorio v. Kenart Realty, Inc., 48 A.D.3d at 652–653, 852 N.Y.S.2d 317; L & B Estates, LLC v. Allstate Ins., 71 A.D.3d at 837, 897 N.Y.S.2d 188). In opposition, Zurich failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch......
-
Perl v. Meher
...Car Serv., Inc., 72 A.D.3d 646, 897 N.Y.S.2d 648; Sierra v. Gonzalez First Limo, 71 A.D.3d 864, 895 N.Y.S.2d 863; Little v. Locoh, 71 A.D.3d 837, 897 N.Y.S.2d 183) and upon recent findings ( see Sham v. B & P Chimney Cleaning & Repair Co. Inc., 71 A.D.3d 978, 900 N.Y.S.2d 72; Carrillo v. Di......
-
Ciancarelli v. Rosales
...74 A.D.3d 1043, 903 N.Y.S.2d 120 [2d Dept 2010]; 3 Simanovskiy v Barbaro, 72 A.D.3d 930, 899 N.Y.S.2d 324 [2d Dept 2010]; Zlttfe v Locoh, 71 A.D.3d 837,897 N.Y.S.2d 183 [2d Dept 2010]; Larson v Delgado, 71 A.D.3d 739, 897N.Y.S.2d 167 [2d Dept 2010]). Sprains and strains are not serious inju......
-
Williams v. Cnty. of Suffolk
...74 A.D.3d 1043,903 N.Y.S.2d 120 [2d Dept 2010]; Simanovskiy v Barbaro, 72A.D.3d 930 899 N.Y.S.2d 324 [2d Dept 2010]; Little v Locoh, 71 A.D.3d 837,897 N.Y.S.2d 183 [2d Dept 20101- Larson v Delgado 71 A.D.3d 739,897 N.Y.S.2d 167 [2d Dept 2010]). Sprains and strains are not serious injuries w......