From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Codrington v. Ahmad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2007
40 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-08748.

May 15, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated July 26, 2006, 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).

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Holly E. Peck of counsel), for appellants.

Goidel Siegel, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven E. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Crane, J.P., Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing 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 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs examining physician improperly relied on un-sworn and unaffirmed reports of other physicians ( see Elder v Stokes, 35 AD3d 799; Felix v New York City Tr. Auth., 32 AD3d 527, 528; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266, 267). Therefore, the physician's report was without probative value in opposing the defendants' motion. The plaintiff's affidavit was insufficient to show that he sustained a serious injury caused by the accident since there was no objective medical evidence to demonstrate that he sustained a serious injury ( see Yakubov v CG Trans Corp., 30 AD3d 509, 510; Davis v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 531, 531-532). The plaintiff's remaining submissions were without probative value in opposing the motion since they were unsworn, unaffirmed, or uncertified ( see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815; Felix v New York City Tr. Auth., supra at 528; Yakubov v CG Trans Corp., supra; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270; see also CPLR 4518 [c]).


Summaries of

Codrington v. Ahmad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2007
40 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Codrington v. Ahmad

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT F. CODRINGTON, II, Respondent, v. NAZIER AHMAD et al., Appellants

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

Date published: May 15, 2007

Citations

40 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 4249
836 N.Y.S.2d 642

Citing Cases

SAETIA v. VIP RENOVATIONS CORP.

Therefore, the probative value of Dr. Park's affirmation is reduced by his reliance on MRI reports and…

SAETIA v. VIP RENOVATIONS CORP.

Therefore, the probative value of Dr. Park's affirmation is reduced by his reliance on MRI reports and…