Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

ATTANASIO v. LASHLEY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Jan 22, 1996
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Pina C. Delgenio, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

In support of his motion, the appellant submitted affirmations and medical reports prepared by Dr. Michael V. Marrone and Dr. Harold E. Berson and excerpts of the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff, Veronica Attanasio, which indicate that she returned to work eight days after the accident that caused her injuries and that she was not thereafter absent from work as a result of being disabled by her injuries. This evidence establishes a prima facie case that Ms. Attanasio did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law ยง 5102 (d) and shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to offer sufficient proof to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Winkler v Lombardi, 205 A.D.2d 757).

While the plaintiffs submitted affidavits of two doctors that characterized Ms. Attanasio's alleged disability as permanent, those affidavits were based on examinations that had been conducted approximately four and six years, respectively, prior to the appellant's motion. Additionally, the findings of permanency contained in those reports were merely conclusory in nature. Thus, they were without evidentiary value and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, McHattie v Antieri, 190 A.D.2d 780; O'Neill v Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 466; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 A.D.2d 565). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.