From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kim v. Budhu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 2000
273 A.D.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 24, 1999.

June 5, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated January 20, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to the plaintiff Sook Y. Kim on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Frank V. Merlino, Garden City, N.Y. (David Holmes of counsel), for appellants.

Capetola Doddato, LLP, Williston Park, N.Y. (Troy L. Kessler of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Sook Y. Kim is dismissed.

A chiropractor's report dated approximately three weeks after the accident indicated no lumbar or cervical range of motion limitations for the plaintiff Sook Y. Kim (hereinafter the plaintiff), as a result of the accident. After an unexplained 21-month gap in treatment (see, Medina v. Zalman Reis and Assocs., Inc., 239 A.D.2d 394, 395), and in opposition to the defendants' motion, which established their entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted a new report from the chiropractor which indicated significant limitations in the plaintiff's range of motion as a result of the accident.

The plaintiff' s submissions were insufficient to defeat the defendants' summary judgment motion, as they were clearly tailored to meet the statutory requirements (see, Marshall v. Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79 [2d Dept., May 8, 2000]).


Summaries of

Kim v. Budhu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 2000
273 A.D.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Kim v. Budhu

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY T. KIM, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. V. A. BUDHU, ET AL., APPELLANTS

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

Date published: Jun 5, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 440

Citing Cases

Taher v. Valerio-Mena

go to trial under two categories of section 5102 (d), namely, a "permanent consequential limitation of use of…

Taher v. Valerio-Mena

tegories of section 5102(d), namely, a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member"…