From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thaler v. Aspen Ready Mix Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 24, 2001
286 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

In Thaler v. Aspen Ready Mix Corp. (286 AD2d 763, [Second Department, 2001]), the appellate court, simply citing DiRoario, again held that a motion for summary judgment was timely.

Summary of this case from King v. 16 John St. Owner, L.L.C.

Opinion

Submitted September 5, 2001.

September 24, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated December 12, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Joel Thaler did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d).

Tromello, McDonnell Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (Stephen J. Donnelly of counsel), for appellants.

Hayt, Hayt and Landau, Great Neck, N.Y. (Laurence Jeffrey Weingard and Andrew Bokar of counsel), for respondents.

Before: O'BRIEN, J.P., MILLER, McGINITY, SCHMIDT, TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was timely (see, Di Rosario v. Williams, 276 A.D.2d 583).

Moreover, the medical evidence submitted in support of the defendants' motion established prima facie that the plaintiff Joel Thaler did not, as a result of the subject accident, sustain a serious injury based on loss of hearing (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). Further, it can be inferred from Mr. Thaler's deposition testimony that any orthopedic injuries which he sustained in the accident had long since resolved.

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212[b]). Notably, the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Jill Bressler, failed to specify in her affirmed report the objective tests she used in arriving at her conclusions regarding alleged restrictions in Mr. Thaler's range of motion (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79). Accordingly, the defendants' motion should have been granted.

O'BRIEN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Thaler v. Aspen Ready Mix Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 24, 2001
286 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

In Thaler v. Aspen Ready Mix Corp. (286 AD2d 763, [Second Department, 2001]), the appellate court, simply citing DiRoario, again held that a motion for summary judgment was timely.

Summary of this case from King v. 16 John St. Owner, L.L.C.
Case details for

Thaler v. Aspen Ready Mix Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOEL THALER, ET AL., respondents, v. ASPEN READY MIX CORP., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Sep 24, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
730 N.Y.S.2d 717

Citing Cases

King v. 16 John St. Owner, L.L.C.

However, in DiRosario v. Williams (276 AD2d 583 [Second Department 2000]), where a note of issue was filed,…

Capellan v. Almonte

In addition. Plaintiff s deposition testimony sufficiently refutes that he sustained any "permanent…