From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soto v. Fogg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The injured plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain, as contained in her affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion, without more, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury ( see, Scheer v. Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678; Lincoln v. Johnson, 225 A.D.2d 593; Orr v. Miner, 220 A.D.2d 567).

We note that the Magnetic Resonance Imaging report submitted by the plaintiffs was not in admissible form, and therefore, should not be considered on the instant motion ( see, Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814; Gleason v. Huber, 188 A.D.2d 581; Craft v. Brantuk, 195 A.D.2d 438).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Soto v. Fogg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Soto v. Fogg

Case Details

Full title:JOANN SOTO et al., Appellants, v. JUANITA FOGG, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 23, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 174

Citing Cases

Stein v. Alenski

Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to demonstrate a question of…

Shmukler v. Shpilberg

The appellants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting, among other…