From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burn v. Hinckley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 20, 1993
196 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

September 20, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the conclusions of the Supreme Court, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff did not lose any days of work as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident. Further, although the plaintiff complained of back pain, his subjective complaints were insufficient to defeat the defendants' motion for summary judgment (see, Grayer v Jerez, 192 A.D.2d 637; Dubois v Simpson, 182 A.D.2d 993; Tipping-Cestari v Kilhenny, 174 A.D.2d 663). Moreover, the affidavit of the plaintiff's doctor failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Grier v Kuhn, 187 A.D.2d 559; Hemmes v Twedt, 180 A.D.2d 925, 926). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Burn v. Hinckley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 20, 1993
196 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Burn v. Hinckley

Case Details

Full title:SHANE BURN, Respondent, v. ROBERT H. HINCKLEY et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Sep 20, 1993

Citations

196 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
602 N.Y.S.2d 31

Citing Cases

McDowell v. State

Therefore, the court properly dismissed the claim since the notice of intention did not contain facts…