From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Galatro v. Randall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1997
240 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 16, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).


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

Contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the affirmation of the defendants' medical expert was in admissible form (see, CPLR 2106). Furthermore, the defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to serious injury (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). However, the plaintiffs' evidence demonstrated only a minor, mild, or slight limitation of use of the injured plaintiff's left knee. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, supra; Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230).

Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Galatro v. Randall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1997
240 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Galatro v. Randall

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY J. GALATRO et al., Respondents, v. ROBERT J. RANDALL et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
659 N.Y.S.2d 988

Citing Cases

Reyes v. State

Courts have held that curtailed performance of customary daily activities and subjective proof of pain,…