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.
Nahum Bladimir HERNANDEZ, appellant, v. Christy D. TAUB, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated July 1, 2004, which granted the defendant's 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 plaintiff's hospital emergency room records, and the affirmed medical reports of the defendant's examining neurologist and orthopedist indicating that the plaintiff had completely recovered from his injuries and was neither impaired nor disabled, as well as the affirmation of a radiologist indicating that MRIs of the plaintiff's spine had shown only degenerative conditions, sufficiently established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (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). The plaintiff's opposition consisted, inter alia, of computerized range of motion and sensory nerve conduction testing, unaffirmed medical reports which were without probative value (see Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814, 580 N.Y.S.2d 178, 588 N.E.2d 76; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268, 270, 587 N.Y.S.2d 692), and the affidavit of a chiropractor which failed to explain a 2 1/212 year gap in treatment (see Jimenez v. Kambli, 272 A.D.2d 581, 582, 708 N.Y.S.2d 460; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834, 695 N.Y.S.2d 405). Moreover, the mere claim of a disc herniation, without more, is insufficient to show the existence of a serious injury (see Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 A.D.3d 45, 49-50, 789 N.Y.S.2d 281; Guzman v. Michael Mgt., 266 A.D.2d 508, 509, 698 N.Y.S.2d 719). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.
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: June 06, 2005
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)