From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tanzi v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2004
7 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-03793.

Decided May 3, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated November 6, 2003, 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).

Mallilo Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondents.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The affidavit of the plaintiff's chiropractor submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see Jimenez v. Kambli, 272 A.D.2d 581; Guzman v. Michael Mgt., 266 A.D.2d 508; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834; Carroll v. Jennings, 264 A.D.2d 494; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365; Barrett v. Howland, 202 A.D.2d 383; LeBrun v. Joyner, 195 A.D.2d 502).

The plaintiff's statement that she was unable to return to work for one year following the accident was not supported by any competent medical evidence supporting her claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days as a result of the subject accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennet v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).

Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tanzi v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2004
7 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Tanzi v. Town of Brookhaven

Case Details

Full title:GIOVANA TANZI, appellant, v. TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: May 3, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 592