Stowell v. Safee
| Decision Date | 10 June 1998 |
| Citation | 251 A.D.2d 1026,674 N.Y.S.2d 228 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5728 Sandra L. STOWELL and David E. Stowell, Respondents, v. James SAFEE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Brugio, Kita & Curvin by Hilary Banker, Buffalo, for defendant-appellant.
Rosenthal, Siegel, Muenkel & Maloney, LLP by Jay Rosenthal, Buffalo, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and GREEN, PIGOTT, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.
Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant met his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that Sandra L. Stowell (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; Muratore v. Tierney, 229 A.D.2d 1018, 645 N.Y.S.2d 178). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of her treating neurologist, who states that, as a result of the accident, plaintiff sustained a permanent disability and significant limitation of motion in her lumbar region caused by myofascial pain syndrome. The neurologist's conclusions, however, are based upon plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain and are unsupported by objective medical proof. "Projections of disability based upon subjective complaints of pain without objective medical findings are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment" (McKnight v. LaValle, 147 A.D.2d 902, 903-904, 537 N.Y.S.2d 421, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 605, 543 N.Y.S.2d 398, 541 N.E.2d 427; see, Weaver v. Derr, 242 A.D.2d 823, 661 N.Y.S.2d 684; Antorino v. Mordes, 202 A.D.2d 528, 529, 609 N.Y.S.2d 273). The unsworn statements of plaintiff's treating neurologist contained in the unsworn report of defendant's expert neurologist are not in admissible form and are therefore insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Tatti v. Cummings, 193 A.D.2d 596, 597 N.Y.S.2d 456; see also, Clifford v. Black Clawson Co., 145 A.D.2d 808, 535 N.Y.S.2d 791, lv. dismissed 73 N.Y.2d 995, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 538 N.E.2d 358, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 714, 564 N.Y.S.2d 717, 565 N.E.2d 1268).
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. Cdga Nat'l Bank Trust & Canandaigua Nat'l Corp.
...Realty Corp., 89 A.D.3d 602, 603, 935 N.Y.S.2d 1;Woodard v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 405, 405, 692 N.Y.S.2d 407;Stowell v. Safee, 251 A.D.2d 1026, 1026, 674 N.Y.S.2d 228;see also Ciccarelli v. Cotira, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 1276, 1276–1277, 806 N.Y.S.2d 326). In any event, the report of plaint......
- Thompson v. Erie County Indus. Development Agency
-
Roger v. Soos
..."based upon plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain and [is] unsupported by objective medical proof" ( Stowell v. Safee, 251 A.D.2d 1026, 1026, 674 N.Y.S.2d 228 [4th Dept. 1998] ). Thus, defendant's submission of the report of plaintiff's expert did not raise issues of fact precluding sum......
-
Howard v. Rogalski, 01-01739
...Abdallah v Flattery, 280 A.D.2d 917, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 719; Brown v Wagg, 280 A.D.2d 891, 891-892, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 711; Stowell v Safee, 251 A.D.2d 1026; Tipping-Cestari v Kilhenny, 174 A.D.2d 663, 664). We disagree with plaintiff that her morbid obesity constitutes a "significant dis......