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.
Paresheuram MAHABIR, appellant, v. Jamaluddin ALLY, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated September 23, 2004, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
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) through the submission of the affirmed medical reports of their examining neurologist and orthopedist (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 A.D.3d 45, 789 N.Y.S.2d 281). The plaintiff was thus required to come forward with objective medical evidence to verify his subjective complaints of pain and limitation of motion (see Farozes v. Kamran, 22 A.D.3d 458, 802 N.Y.S.2d 706; Batista v. Olivo, 17 A.D.3d 494, 795 N.Y.S.2d 54). Moreover, any significant lapse in time between the conclusion of the plaintiff's medical treatment and the physical examination conducted by his physician had to be adequately explained (see Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566, 797 N.Y.S.2d 380, 830 N.E.2d 278; Batista v. Olivo, supra ). The affirmation of the plaintiff's physician, which offered no explanation for a lengthy gap in treatment, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see Pommells v. Perez, supra; Bailey v. Ichtchenko, 11 A.D.3d 419, 420, 782 N.Y.S.2d 781).
Furthermore, the plaintiff's submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he was unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days immediately following the accident (see Farozes v. Kamran, supra; Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569, 712 N.Y.S.2d 133).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: February 07, 2006
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)