From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendoza v. Whitmire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05721.

Decided April 26, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated May 8, 2003, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Robert Weiss, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Romagnolo Cambio, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Michael Yoeli of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant 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). A report of the plaintiff's treating physician in opposition to the motion was unaffirmed and therefore without probative value ( see Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266, 267; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268, 270). The plaintiff's other expert failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the two-year gap between the accident and the date of his examination ( see Jimenez v. Kambli, 272 A.D.2d 581, 582; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834).

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent medical evidence supporting his claim that he was unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days following the subject accident as a result of the accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569, 570; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200, 201; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441, 442; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennett v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800, 801; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).

Accordingly, the defendant was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mendoza v. Whitmire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Mendoza v. Whitmire

Case Details

Full title:ORLANDO MENDOZA, appellant, v. MATTHEW WHITMIRE, respondent

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

Date published: Apr 26, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 171

Citing Cases

Vallejo v. Builders for the Family Youth

The defendants made a prima facie showing that neither of the infant plaintiffs John Vallejo, Jr., and…

Majano v. Craig

Moreover, these verified objective medical findings must be based on a recent examination of the plaintiff (…