AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

MOHAMED KASSIM, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., defendants, GLORIA RANDISI, ET AL., appellants.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, those branches of the appellants' respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries insofar as asserted against them are granted, that cause of action is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to the remaining defendants dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries insofar as asserted against them.

The appellants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that he sustained a serious injury. The plaintiff's treating physician failed to set forth what objective tests, if any, he used in arriving at his conclusion concerning the alleged restriction of motion in the plaintiff's cervical spine (see Slasor v. Elfaiz, 275 A.D.2d 771; Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79), and failed to specify the degree of the limitation of motion (see Linares v. Mompoint, 273 A.D.2d 446; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834; Lobo v. Singh, 259 A.D.2d 523; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498; Merisca v. Alford, 243 A.D.2d 613).

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he sustained a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for a period of not less than 90 days during the 180-day period immediately following the accident (see Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Delpilar v. Browne, 282 A.D.2d 647; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Carpluk v. Freidman, 269 A.D.2d 349).

Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he sustained a serious injury, we search the record and grant summary judgment to the remaining defendants dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries insofar as asserted against them.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KASSIM v. CITY OF NEW YORK
(Oct 15, 2002)