From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Tronchin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05810.

Decided April 26, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated May 3, 2003, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Michael S. Lamonsoff (DiJoseph Portegello, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III] of counsel), for appellant.

Cheven Keely Hatzis, New York, N.Y. (William B. Stock and Mayu Miyashita of counsel), for respondents.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The affidavit of the plaintiff's chiropractor submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see Trotter v. Hart, 285 A.D.2d 772; Williams v. Ciaramella, 250 A.D.2d 763; Cabri v. Myung Soo Park, 260 A.D.2d 525, Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang, 175 A.D.2d 204; Medina v. Zalmen Reis and Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394).

Moreover, the plaintiff's statement that she was unable to return to work for six months following the accident was not supported by any competent medical evidence that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days as a result of the subject accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennet v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).

Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. Tronchin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Williams v. Tronchin

Case Details

Full title:LINETTE WILLIAMS, appellant, v. SHAWN TRONCHIN, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Apr 26, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 157