Rodriguez v. Tsui
| Decision Date | 12 November 1996 |
| Citation | 233 A.D.2d 382,650 N.Y.S.2d 568 |
| Parties | Roberto RODRIGUEZ, Respondent, v. Kwan Cheung TSUI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Cheven & Keely, New York City (Thomas Torto, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
Hershman & Choe, New York City (Richard K. Hershman, of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated January 10, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendant moved for summary judgment contending that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d). The only medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment was a physician's affirmation which failed to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitation and its duration. This evidence thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212[b] ) as to whether the plaintiff suffered a significant limitation of the use of a body function or system (see, Insurance Law § 5102[d]; see, Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774, 575 N.Y.S.2d 102).
Moreover, the conclusory evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had been incapacitated from employment for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment as required under Insurance Law § 5102(d). We note that while in opposition to the motion the plaintiff claimed to have been unable to return to work for four months following the accident, an application for no-fault benefits signed by the plaintiff approximately four months after the accident indicated that he had lost only two weeks of work.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noble v. Ackerman
...their duration (see, Parker v. Defontaine-Stratton, supra; Mickelson v. Padang, 237 A.D.2d 495, 496, 655 N.Y.S.2d 592; Rodriguez v. Tsui, 233 A.D.2d 382, 650 N.Y.S.2d 568; David v. Green, 233 A.D.2d 476, 477, 650 N.Y.S.2d 970). The evidence adduced by plaintiff was clearly insufficient to g......
-
Bahos v. Cortez
...recitation of the statutory language." (Browne v. Covington, 82 A.D.3d 406, 407 [1st Dept March 1, 2011]; see also Rodriguez v. Tsui, 233 A.D.2d 382 [2nd Dept 1996].) Therefore the plaintiff has failed to prove there was a serious injury under thePage 690 to 180 day category. Further plaint......
-
Lee v. Rosio
...injuries she allegedly sustained in this accident (see, Howell v. Williams, 239 A.D.2d 558, 658 N.Y.S.2d 971; Rodriguez v. Kwan Cheung Tsui, 233 A.D.2d 382, 650 N.Y.S.2d 568; Letellier v. Walker, 222 A.D.2d 658, 635 N.Y.S.2d 682). The plaintiff did not submit any evidence in opposition to t......
-
Polizzi v. Won Jun Choi
...§ 5102[d]; Lee v. Rosio, 257 A.D.2d 561, 683 N.Y.S.2d 282; Howell v. Williams, 239 A.D.2d 558, 658 N.Y.S.2d 971; Rodriguez v. Kwan Cheung Tsui, 233 A.D.2d 382, 650 N.Y.S.2d 568; Letellier v. Walker, 222 A.D.2d 658, 635 N.Y.S.2d The affidavit of the plaintiff's treating chiropractor submitte......