From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodney v. Solntseu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2003
302 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-10981

January 8, 2003.

February 13, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated November 13, 2001, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Gerald Gardner Wright, P.C., Hempstead, N.Y. for appellant.

Reardon Sclafani, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. (Jules J. Ravo of counsel) for respondents.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants submitted the sworn medical reports of their medical experts which established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; McCauley v. Ross, 298 A.D.2d 506). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained such an injury, since he failed to submit competent medical evidence in admissible form (see Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813; Fisher v. Williams, 289 A.D.2d 288; Slavin v. Associates Leasing, 273 A.D.2d 372; Young v. Ryan, 265 A.D.2d 547).

The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that he was prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for a period of not less than 90 days during the 180-day period immediately following the accident (see Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Buonaiuto v. Shulberg, 254 A.D.2d 384; Ciaccio v. J R Home Improvements, 149 A.D.2d 558). In the absence of admissible objective evidence of injury, the plaintiff's self-serving affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Paulino v. Xiaoyu Dai, 279 A.D.2d 619).

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rodney v. Solntseu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2003
302 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Rodney v. Solntseu

Case Details

Full title:DERRICK RODNEY, Appellant, v. MAKSIM SOLNTSEU, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Feb 13, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
754 N.Y.S.2d 911

Citing Cases

Zweng v. Semmens

The plaintiffs failed to make such a submission. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the unsworn report…

Olson v. Russell

of motion and based on objective testing, it is unclear from that affirmation whether those findings were…