From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Estrada v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 1992
183 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

May 7, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.).


The IAS court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case of serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5104 (a). The record reveals that plaintiff lost only one day of work and resumed his regular job responsibilities within several days after the accident. Plaintiff's treating chiropractor's conclusory opinion that plaintiff "sustained a significant limitation of use of a described body function which will continue for an indefinite period of time" was based upon subjective complaints of recurrent pain, not upon objective medical findings sufficient to establish serious injury within the meaning of the statute (see, Solarzano v. Power Test Petro, 181 A.D.2d 631; O'Neill v. Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 466).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Estrada v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 1992
183 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Estrada v. Holmes

Case Details

Full title:DANILO A. ESTRADA et al., Appellants, v. EARL HOLMES et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 7, 1992

Citations

183 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
583 N.Y.S.2d 273

Citing Cases

WILLIAMS v. ELZY

laims she could only perform "light work" such as cooking, cleaning the house and running errands for…

Looney v. Epervary

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted the unsworn reports of the…