From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Millar v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2004
7 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06487.

Decided May 10, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), entered June 19, 2003, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Cannavo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stephen C. Glasser, Stewart G. Milch, and Thomas S. Russo of counsel), for appellant.

Burns, Russo, Tamigi Reardon, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Ian C. Heller and Jeffrey M. Burkhoff of counsel), for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The unaffirmed report of the plaintiff's physician dated February 11, 2002, submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Moreover, the affirmed report of the same physician did not identify the objective tests, if any, he used to establish limitations in the plaintiff's range of motion.

The plaintiff failed to submit any competent objective medical evidence to support a claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days after the subject accident as a result of the subject accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennett v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).

Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Millar v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2004
7 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Millar v. Town of Oyster Bay

Case Details

Full title:MICHELLE MILLAR, appellant, v. TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: May 10, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 893

Citing Cases

Sanchez v. Rosendo

While Dr. Etkind stated that he had objectively measured and found restrictions in both the cervical and…

Diaz v. Chaudhry

Plaintiff admitted that was confined to bed and home for about two or three days, and that he looked for work…