AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

ELIZABETH L. POST et al., Respondents, v. DAVID J. BRODERICK et al., Appellants.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed.

In a personal injury action, the right to recover for noneconomic loss arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle is confined to those cases involving "serious injury" as defined in subdivision 4 of section 671 Ins. of the Insurance Law (Insurance Law, § 673). The affidavits submitted by plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient showing of serious injury so as to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment. The allegations of occasional pain do not constitute a "significant limitation" within the meaning of subdivision 4 of section 671 Ins. of the Insurance Law (see Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Lopez v Senatore, 97 A.D.2d 787). In the face of a medical report indicating only "[s]uperficial scratches" on her right knee, plaintiff Elizabeth Post's bare conclusory statement that she has a "disfiguring" scar there is insufficient as a matter of law. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the infant plaintiffs' activities were restricted for approximately six weeks only, less than the minimum 90-day period required by the statute (Insurance Law, § 671, subd. 4; Licari v Elliott, supra).

Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

POST v. BRODERICK
(Oct 22, 1984)