8 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2007In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting competent medical evidence to the contrary (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352-353 [2002]). 2003In order to foster the legislative goals of the No-Fault Law, a plaintiffs serious injury claim must be supported by objective evidence (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]). | 2 | 2 |
Gaddy v. Eylergreen1 sentence2007The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to part of the plaintiffs serious injury claim by showing, through competent medical evidence, that she did not sustain a “permanent consequential limitation of use” of a body organ, member, function, or system as a result of the subject accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). | 1 | 1 |
Serrano v. Cantongreen1 sentence2003On a motion for summary judgment, defendant has the threshold burden of establishing that a serious injury did not occur (see Serrano v Canton, 299 AD2d 703, 705 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
176-178 Ashburton Avenue Corp. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'ngreen1 sentence1988We also note that we have declined to follow the rule of the Appellate Division, Third Department, which would require a defendant to submit a physician’s affidavit in order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment where there is clearly a lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim (see, Padron v Hood, supra, at 720; Popp v Kremer, supra, at 721 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michaelides v. Martone
neutral
2 sentences1996Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the admissible medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not patently demonstrate the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim (cf., Grier v Kuhn, 187 AD2d 559 ; Michaelides v Martone, 186 AD2d 544 ; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565 ). 1992Muthig, Inc., 131 AD2d 657 ), where, as here, the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim is patent from an examination of the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff herself (see, Michaelides v Martone, 186 AD2d 544 ; Popp v Kremer, 124 AD2d 720, 722 ). | 2 | 1992–1996 |
Popp v. Kremer
green
2 sentences1992Muthig, Inc., 131 AD2d 657 ), where, as here, the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim is patent from an examination of the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff herself (see, Michaelides v Martone, 186 AD2d 544 ; Popp v Kremer, 124 AD2d 720, 722 ). 1988We also note that we have declined to follow the rule of the Appellate Division, Third Department, which would require a defendant to submit a physician’s affidavit in order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment where there is clearly a lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim (see, Padron v Hood, supra, at 720; Popp v Kremer, supra, at 721 ). | 2 | 1988–1992 |
Songer v. Henry W. Muthig, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1992Muthig, Inc., 131 AD2d 657 ), where, as here, the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim is patent from an examination of the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff herself (see, Michaelides v Martone, 186 AD2d 544 ; Popp v Kremer, 124 AD2d 720, 722 ). 1989Muthig, Inc., 131 AD2d 657 ). | 2 | 1989–1992 |
Abbas v. Cole
green
1 sentence2007Most recently, in Abbas v Cole ( 44 AD3d 31 [2007] [decided herewith]) we have held that where the plaintiff obtains a default judgment in a no-fault case without either pleading the facts that underlie the plaintiffs serious injury claim or establishing serious injury in the motion for the default judgment, the issue of serious injury must be addressed at the inquest. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Taylor v. Dell Coffee Services, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2007Along the same lines, we have recognized that a stipulation of “liability” does not necessarily include an admission that the plaintiff has suffered a serious injury (see Taylor v Dell Coffee Servs., 306 AD2d 460 [2003]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cortlandt Associates v. Shkodra Management Co.
green
1 sentence1996Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the admissible medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not patently demonstrate the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim (cf., Grier v Kuhn, 187 AD2d 559 ; Michaelides v Martone, 186 AD2d 544 ; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Georgalas v. Serlin
neutral
1 sentence1996Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the admissible medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not patently demonstrate the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim (cf., Grier v Kuhn, 187 AD2d 559 ; Michaelides v Martone, 186 AD2d 544 ; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Palmer v. Amaker
green
1 sentence1989The defendants’ failure to submit sworn medical affidavits in support of their motion did not preclude the granting of summary judgment since the plaintiffs serious injury claim clearly lacks merit (see, e.g., Palmer v Amaker, supra; Songer v Henry W. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
La Frenire v. Capital District Transportation Authority
green
1 sentence1986Auth. ( 96 AD2d 664 ), which would require a defendant to submit a physician’s affidavit in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion in a case such as this, where the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim is patent (see, D’Iorio v Brancoccio, 115 AD2d 634 ; De Filippo v White, supra; Mulhauser v Wood, 107 AD2d 1019 ; see also, CPLR 4518; Richardson, Evidence § 251 [Prince 10th ed]). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Filippo v. White
green
1 sentence1986Auth. ( 96 AD2d 664 ), which would require a defendant to submit a physician’s affidavit in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion in a case such as this, where the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim is patent (see, D’Iorio v Brancoccio, 115 AD2d 634 ; De Filippo v White, supra; Mulhauser v Wood, 107 AD2d 1019 ; see also, CPLR 4518; Richardson, Evidence § 251 [Prince 10th ed]). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Mulhauser v. Wood
green
1 sentence1986Auth. ( 96 AD2d 664 ), which would require a defendant to submit a physician’s affidavit in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion in a case such as this, where the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim is patent (see, D’Iorio v Brancoccio, 115 AD2d 634 ; De Filippo v White, supra; Mulhauser v Wood, 107 AD2d 1019 ; see also, CPLR 4518; Richardson, Evidence § 251 [Prince 10th ed]). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Deutsch Relays, Inc. v. Fairchild Weston Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986Auth. ( 96 AD2d 664 ), which would require a defendant to submit a physician’s affidavit in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion in a case such as this, where the lack of merit to the plaintiffs serious injury claim is patent (see, D’Iorio v Brancoccio, 115 AD2d 634 ; De Filippo v White, supra; Mulhauser v Wood, 107 AD2d 1019 ; see also, CPLR 4518; Richardson, Evidence § 251 [Prince 10th ed]). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.