From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Tillak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1998
251 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 29, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.),


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

The plaintiff sought to recover damages by claiming that she suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). In order to establish that she suffered such a "significant limitation", the plaintiff was required to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the imitation and its duration ( see, Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774). The affidavits authored by the plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Kathleen R. Watson, failed to specify the extent or degree of the plaintiff's alleged limitation.

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. Tillak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1998
251 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Williams v. Tillak

Case Details

Full title:OLIVE WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. VICTOR TILLAK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jun 29, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 555

Citing Cases

Hernandez v. Castro

Furthermore, in order to sustain a claim for serious injury, Plaintiff is required to establish "competent…