From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ahmed v. Jaekyoo Yoo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.).


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

The defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" ( see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In order to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), as alleged, the plaintiff was required to submit objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation and its duration ( see, Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774). The affidavit of the plaintiff's physician failed to provide such evidence in that it relied on unsworn reports ( see, Merisca v. Alford, 243 A.D.2d 613; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266).

Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ahmed v. Jaekyoo Yoo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Ahmed v. Jaekyoo Yoo

Case Details

Full title:ISRAR AHMED, Respondent, v. JAEKYOO YOO, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 840

Citing Cases

Zupan v. Hart

In our view, Cambareri's affidavit is insufficient to raise a question of fact that plaintiff suffered a…

Slasor v. Elfaiz

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that she sustained a serious injury…