Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Check v. Gacevk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 24, 2005

14 A.D.3d 586; 789 N.Y.S.2d 218; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 528

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Barron v. Blasetti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Desir v. Castillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Raleigh v. Ram (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Cantave v. Gelle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Byrd v. J.R.R. Limo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Mack v. Valfort (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Paula v. Natala (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Fest v. Agnew (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Domanas v. Delgado Travel Agency, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Doran v. Sequino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Brown v. Tairi Hacking Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Joseph v. Layne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated April 23, 2004, as denied his cross 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).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the submission of the plaintiffs deposition testimony, the records of the plaintiffs treating physicians, and the affirmed medical reports of the defendant’s examining physicians (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; Fragale v Geiger, 288 AD2d 431 [2001]; Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]). The submissions of the plaintiff in opposition to the cross motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The conclusions of the plaintiff’s expert physician, who examined the plaintiff for the first time approximately 15 months after the accident, were contradicted by the findings and reports of the plaintiffs own treating physicians and failed to take into account the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in two previous motor vehicle accidents.

*587Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.