Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Vincent LAGANA, respondent, v. Saeid SHAMSIAN, defendant, Clinton Barrow, et al., appellants. (and a third-party action)
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Clinton Barrow and New York Methodist Hospital appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), entered March 23, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sum of $45,000.
ORDERED that the notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated January 27, 1999, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff's evidence was legally insufficient to demonstrate that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain in his arm and shoulder were insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a serious injury (see, Scheer v. Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678, 679, 518 N.Y.S.2d 788, 512 N.E.2d 309; Carroll v. Jennings, 264 A.D.2d 494, 694 N.Y.S.2d 458).
The plaintiff's expert physician, a neurologist who did not consider himself to be an expert in shoulder injuries, testified that the plaintiff's alleged shoulder injury prevented him from performing his usual activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the occurrence. This testimony was improperly based upon the plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain (see, Crandall v. Sledziewski, 260 A.D.2d 754, 687 N.Y.S.2d 812).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 13, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)