NICKS v. KAMINSKY (1998)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Anthony NICKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Nicole KAMINSKY, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: June 30, 1998

MILONAS, J.P., ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, WALLACH and RUBIN, JJ.

Bernard L. Broome, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Michael E. Lipson, for Defendants-Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered July 3, 1997, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs sue to recover for injuries they allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to demonstrate that their injuries are “serious” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) and, accordingly, their complaint was properly dismissed. While plaintiffs suffered a fair measure of discomfort by reason of the subject injuries, there is no evidence of permanent injury or of injury which, although nonpermanent, prevented plaintiffs from performing substantially all of their usual and customary activities for 90 of the 180 days immediately subsequent to the accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102[d] ). Both plaintiffs returned to work directly after the accident and neither plaintiff had adduced evidence of substantial vocational curtailment within the statutorily relevant time frame (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network