From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simpson v. Montag

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 22, 2011
81 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4329.

February 22, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered May 13, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim that they sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Cheven, Keely Hatzis, New York (William B. Stock of counsel), for appellants.

Scarcella Law Offices, White Plains (M. Sean Duffy of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that plaintiffs' injuries were not the result of the subject accident. Although defendants' doctors did not examine plaintiffs until approximately eight years after the accident, the doctors, in rendering their conclusions, also relied on medical evidence contemporaneous with the accident ( see Reyes v Esquilin, 54 AD3d 615, 616; Uddin v Cooper, 32 AD3d 270, 271, lv denied 8 NY3d 808; compare Rivera v Super Star Leasing, Inc., 57 AD3d 288, 288-289).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The fact that both plaintiffs missed more than 90 days of work is not determinative ( see Ortiz v Ash Leasing, Inc., 63 AD3d 556, 557; Uddin at 271). Insurance Law § 5102 (d) requires plaintiffs to be prevented "from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute [their] usual and customary daily activities" for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident. Plaintiffs, however, offered no evidence that they were so restricted, other than their own statements, which were not supported by sufficient medical evidence ( see Colon v Bernabe, 65 AD3d 969, 970-971; Nelson v Distant, 308 AD2d 338, 340).


Summaries of

Simpson v. Montag

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 22, 2011
81 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Simpson v. Montag

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD J. SIMPSON, SR., et al., Respondents, v. MOSHE MONTAG et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2011

Citations

81 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1341
917 N.Y.S.2d 181

Citing Cases

Williams v. Jones

He also noted that, prior to the accident, he played basketball three times per week, but within the first…

Sosa-Sanchez v. Reyes

Plaintiff's physician provided only a conclusory opinion that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the…