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.
Yako v. Isakov, respondent, v Adinamia Mou, Inc., et al., appellants.
Submitted-April 21, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated October 19, 2009, which denied their 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and 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) is granted.
The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff's submissions in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury under the permanent loss of use, permanent consequential limitation of use, or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) because he failed to proffer competent medical evidence that revealed the existence of such loss or limitation in the lumbar or cervical regions of his spine that was contemporaneous with the subject accident (see Bleszcz v. Hiscock, 69 AD3d 890, 891; Taylor v. Flaherty, 65 AD3d 1328, 1328-1329; Gould v. Ombrellino, 57 AD3d 608, 609; Kuchero v. Tabachnikov, 54 AD3d 729, 730; Ferraro v. Ridge Car Serv., 49 AD3d 498, 498). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to submit competent medical evidence that the injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of the subject accident rendered him unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 days of the first 180 days after the date of the accident (see Haber v. Ullah, 69 AD3d 796, 797; Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569).
MASTRO, J.P., SANTUCCI, DICKERSON, BELEN and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2009-11449 (Index No. 4688 /08)
Decided: May 04, 2010
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)