Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Bronx County, under Justice Bertram Katz, issued an order on December 5, 1994, dismissing the action for certain plaintiffs due to their failure to establish serious injury according to Insurance Law § 5102(d). The court unanimously affirmed this dismissal without costs. The plaintiffs' assertion that they could not resume daily activities for 90 out of 180 days following the accident lacked sufficient evidence of confinement, incapacity, or other significant limitations on their daily activities, which are necessary to establish a prima facie case of serious injury, as referenced in Licari v. Elliott. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ affidavits and those of their doctor, which were based solely on subjective pain complaints, did not substantiate any claims of permanent injury, as noted in Velez v. Cohan. The decision was concurred by Justices Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli, Tom, and Mazzarelli.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal for Lack of Serious Injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the action for certain plaintiffs because they failed to establish a serious injury as defined by the law, lacking evidence of significant limitations or confinement.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Bronx County, under Justice Bertram Katz, issued an order on December 5, 1994, dismissing the action for certain plaintiffs due to their failure to establish serious injury according to Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Insufficiency of Subjective Pain Complaintssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The affidavits from plaintiffs and their doctor, based solely on subjective pain complaints, were deemed insufficient to substantiate claims of permanent injury.
Reasoning: Additionally, the plaintiffs’ affidavits and those of their doctor, which were based solely on subjective pain complaints, did not substantiate any claims of permanent injury, as noted in Velez v. Cohan.
Requirements for Establishing Serious Injurysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Plaintiffs needed to demonstrate confinement, incapacity, or significant limitations on daily activities to establish a prima facie case of serious injury, which they failed to do.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs' assertion that they could not resume daily activities for 90 out of 180 days following the accident lacked sufficient evidence of confinement, incapacity, or other significant limitations on their daily activities, which are necessary to establish a prima facie case of serious injury, as referenced in Licari v. Elliott.