Opinion
October 24, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants' claim that there was no objective evidence of "serious injury" as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is predicated on the argument that straight-leg raising tests conducted by physicians are not objective evidence of significant limitation of use of a body function or system because the results of such tests are controlled by the patient being tested. Our case law has consistently treated straight-leg raising tests as objective evidence of serious injury (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 167 A.D.2d 67, affd 79 N.Y.2d 955; Coughlan v. Donnelly, 172 A.D.2d 480; Albanese v. Stevens, 148 A.D.2d 805). In any event, we find that the jury could reasonably have inferred that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff Theresa Kim prevented her from performing substantially all of her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 out of the 180 days after the accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), given the testimony that, as a result of the accident, she was out of work for more than three years, was unable to engage in sexual relations with her husband for almost a year, and remained unable to go bowling or take aerobic dance classes as of the time of trial, more than five years after the accident.
We further find that the awards of $170,000 to Theresa Kim for past pain and suffering, and $25,000 to her husband, Peter Kim, for loss of services, did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Orris v. West, 189 A.D.2d 866; Dunlap v. City of New York, 186 A.D.2d 782; Lamiscarre v. Korvettes Dept. Stores, 130 A.D.2d 461; Durso v City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 458). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.