From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ceglian v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

reversing denial of summary judgment because plaintiff failed to provide "sufficient objective proof of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injuries"

Summary of this case from Molina v. U.S.

Opinion

Submitted April 18, 2001.

May 21, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant William T. Chan appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated February 14, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Nick Ceglian did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Jaffe Nohavicka, New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellant.

Michael D. Hassin, Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Randall A. Sorscher of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of his motion for summary judgment, the appellant submitted evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff Nick Ceglian did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of the treating physician indicating that Ceglian suffered from disc herniations and bulging discs. However, "such injuries alone do not constitute serious injury" (Descovitch v. Blieka, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Jan. 16, 2001). In the absence of sufficient objective proof of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injuries, and that the subject motor vehicle accident was the cause of these disc injuries, the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact to defeat summary judgment (see, Descovitch v. Blieka, supra; Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79).

O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ceglian v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

reversing denial of summary judgment because plaintiff failed to provide "sufficient objective proof of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injuries"

Summary of this case from Molina v. U.S.
Case details for

Ceglian v. Chan

Case Details

Full title:NICK CEGLIAN, ET AL., respondents, v. WILLIAM T. CHAN, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 21, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 762

Citing Cases

Wallace v. Sperl

Plaintiff must demonstrate that the motor vehicle accident prevented her from performing a substantial part…

Surujdin v. Zaman

Defendant presented a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment under Insurance Law § 5102(d),…