From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malloy v. Brisco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1992
183 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Summary

In Malloy, the appellate court affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff had failed to show that she was disabled for the requisite period of time, and alleged only her subjective assessment as to the pain and extent of disability.

Summary of this case from Barney v. U.S.

Opinion

May 4, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motions for summary judgment, the defendants submitted the pleadings and a portion of the examination before trial of the plaintiff Margaret Malloy. In opposition, Margaret Malloy offered her own affidavit and a physician's report. Margaret Malloy's examination before trial indicated that approximately four weeks after the accident she returned to both work and her duties as a member of the local volunteer ambulance crew.

On these facts the court properly granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. By her own admission, Margaret Malloy was not disabled for a period of 90 during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the injury (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In addition, Margaret Malloy's affidavit of subjective pain was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Zoldas v. Louise Cab Corp., 108 A.D.2d 378, 381). Under these circumstances, Margaret Malloy failed, as a matter of law, to establish that she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the statute (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; DeFilippo v White, 101 A.D.2d 801; Hezekiah v. Williams, 81 A.D.2d 261). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Malloy v. Brisco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1992
183 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

In Malloy, the appellate court affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff had failed to show that she was disabled for the requisite period of time, and alleged only her subjective assessment as to the pain and extent of disability.

Summary of this case from Barney v. U.S.
Case details for

Malloy v. Brisco

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET MALLOY et al., Appellants, v. JOHN BRISCO et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 4, 1992

Citations

183 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
583 N.Y.S.2d 290

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Jerusalem Air, Inc.

at treatment, if any, he received for his alleged injuries in the approximately 2 1/2-year period between the…

Tabacco v. Kasten

The appellant met his initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury"…