From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feeney v. Klotz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09599

Argued September 23, 2003.

October 14, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered September 26, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $100,000.

Shapiro, Beilly, Rosenberg, Aronowitz, Levy Fox, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Roy J. Karlin of counsel), for appellant.

Tracie A. Sundack Associates, LLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Jeffrey R. Pollack of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff brought the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a two-vehicle accident with the defendant. After obtaining a judgment on the issue of liability, the case proceeded to a trial on damages. The jury returned a verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature that prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 out of the first 180 days immediately following the accident, and awarded him $100,000 in damages.

We reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that he sustained an injury under the 90/180-day category of serious injury ( see Insurance Law § 5102[d]), and therefore, "no rational jury could find that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury based upon the evidence presented" ( Crespo v. Kramer, 295 A.D.2d 467, 468; see Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553; Zeldin v. Mendelsohn, 288 A.D.2d 468; Sam v. Zelman, 252 A.D.2d 550). The plaintiff, who was a student when the accident occurred, missed no time from school following the accident. Thus, he failed to establish a prima facie case that he sustained a medically-determined injury which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute his usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident ( see Crespo v. Kramer, supra; Parkhill v. Cleary, 305 A.D.2d 1088, 1089-1090; Lynch v. Williams, 265 A.D.2d 870, 872; Lashway v. Groshans, 241 A.D.2d 832, 834; Ciaccio v. J R Home Improvements, 149 A.D.2d 558).

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Feeney v. Klotz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Feeney v. Klotz

Case Details

Full title:JESSE FEENEY, respondent, v. HENRY KLOTZ, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 639

Citing Cases

Burns v. McCabe

Memorandum: Plaintiff's commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by their…

Verni v. Nystrom & Sons Contracting Corp.

The 90/180 category of serious injury, as codified in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), requires that a plaintiff…