From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saint-Hilaire v. PV Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2008
56 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-06571.

November 12, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 26, 2007, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Lesly Saint-Hilaire did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and denied the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

Harmon, Linder Rogowsky (Mitchell Dranow, Mineola, N.Y., of counsel), for appellants.

Blaine Magee, Rockville Centre, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the plaintiff Lesly Saint-Hilaire (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury to his lumbar spine as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Byam v Waltuch, 50 AD3d 939; Giraldo v Mandanici, 24 AD3d 419). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' experts failed to address the conclusions of the defendants' examining radiologist that the injuries to the injured plaintiff's lumbar spine were the result of long-standing degeneration and were unrelated to the subject accident. Thus, the conclusions of the plaintiffs' experts that the injuries to the injured plaintiff's lumbar spine were caused by the subject accident were mere speculation ( see Cornelius v Cintas Corp., 50 AD3d 1085; Marrache v Akron Taxi Corp., 50 AD3d 973; Giraldo v Mandanici, 24 AD3d 419; Lorthe v Adeyeye, 306 AD2d 252).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury was properly denied by the court.


Summaries of

Saint-Hilaire v. PV Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2008
56 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Saint-Hilaire v. PV Holding Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LESLY SAINT-HILAIRE et al., Appellants, v. PV HOLDING CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 2008

Citations

56 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8724
867 N.Y.S.2d 494

Citing Cases

McKelvey v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Neither Dr. Hausknecht nor any other medical evidence presented by plaintiff addresses the findings by…

McKelvey v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Neither Dr. Hausknecht nor any other medical evidence presented by plaintiff addresses the findings by…