From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Agramonte v. Marvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 13, 2005
22 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6755.

October 13, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered July 9, 2004, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to plaintiffs-appellants on the ground that they did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Keogh Crispi, P.C., New York (Pat James Crispi of counsel), for appellants.

Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Levda Meyers, New York (Erika L. Omundson of counsel), for Donald Marvin, respondent.

Picciano Scahill, PC, Westbury (Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for Humberto S. Espinal, respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.


Plaintiffs received physical therapy for three months after the accident but sought no other treatment until two years later, shortly after defendants made the first of their motions for summary judgment. This unexplained gap in treatment is fatal to plaintiffs' claims of serious injury ( Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574; Colon v. Kempner, 20 AD3d 372, 374).


Summaries of

Agramonte v. Marvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 13, 2005
22 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Agramonte v. Marvin

Case Details

Full title:JOCELYN AGRAMONTE et al., Appellants, v. DONALD MARVIN et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 13, 2005

Citations

22 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7599
802 N.Y.S.2d 420

Citing Cases

Valeriano v. Murre Cab Corp.

This gap or complete cessation of treatment further undermines the plaintiffs' claim of serious injury under…

Toussaint v. Claudio

nt, addressed plaintiff's condition as of the time of the examination, not during the six months immediately…