Anatoly Kravtsov v. Anson S. Wong
Summary of the case Anatoly Kravtsov v. Anson S. Wong
The defendants appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case, arguing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The court reversed the order, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint, as the defendants showed no evidence of serious injury, and the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient.
Key Issues of the case Anatoly Kravtsov v. Anson S. Wong
- Whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d)
- Whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment
Key Facts of the case Anatoly Kravtsov v. Anson S. Wong
- Defendants submitted medical reports showing no serious injury
- Plaintiff's evidence indicated only soft tissue injuries
Decision of the case Anatoly Kravtsov v. Anson S. Wong
The motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
Opinions
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury through the submission of the affirmed medical reports of an orthopedist and a neurologist who examined the plaintiff two years after the accident and found no evidence of a disability, impairment, or restriction (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmations of the plaintiffs physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. It was clear from the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff that he had sustained, at most, soft tissue injuries which were of an insignificant nature (see Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 [1987]; Pajda v Pedone, 303 AD2d 729 [2003]; Barrett v Howland, 202 AD2d 383 [1994]; LeBrun v Joyner, 195 AD2d 502 [1993]; Coughlan v Donnelly, 172 AD2d 480 [1991]).
Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent medical evidence which would have supported a claim that he was unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days following the subject accident (see Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569 [2000]; Jackson v New York City Tr. Auth., 273 AD2d 200 [2000]; Greene v Miranda, 272 AD2d 441 [2000]; Arshad v Gomer, 268 AD2d 450 [2000]; Bennett v Reed, 263 AD2d 800 [1999]; DiNunzio v County of Suffolk, 256 AD2d 498, 499 [1998]).
Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.