From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marin v. Kakivelis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1998
251 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 15, 1998

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


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 28, 1997, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 7, 1998, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 7, 1998, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The evidence submitted by the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the reports prepared by Dr. Richard Carruthers and Dr. Jay Nathan, which were affirmed to be true under penalty of perjury, constituted competent evidence ( see, CPLR 2106; cf., Moore v. Tappen, 242 A.D.2d 526).

The chiropractor's affidavit which was submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment contained conclusory assertions that the plaintiff is suffering from a significant limitation and permanent consequential limitation based upon a recent examination, without quantifying the extent or degree to which the plaintiff's range of movement is allegedly limited ( see, Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774). Although the affidavit contains measurements of limitations of motion in the plaintiff's spine, they were based upon a physical examination conducted four years earlier ( see, O'Neill v. Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 466). Thus, the plaintiff failed to provide objective evidence of the duration of the alleged impairment ( see, Philpotts v. Petrovic, 160 A.D.2d 856; Covington v. Cinnirella, 146 A.D.2d 565).

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to support his allegation that his injuries had prevented him from performing substantially all of his customary and usual daily activities during at least 90 out of the first 180 days following the accident ( see, Rodriguez v. Kwan Cheung Tsui, 233 A.D.2d 382).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marin v. Kakivelis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1998
251 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Marin v. Kakivelis

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY J. MARIN, Appellant, v. GEORGE KAKIVELIS et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 709

Citing Cases

Valera v. Singh

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs failed to raise a…

Valera v. Singh

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs failed to raise a…