Legal Opinion

Lumpkins v. Kendrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 13, 2000PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Judgment and order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for judgment at the close of plaintiffs proof on the ground that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). With respect to his allegation that he sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, plaintiff failed to support his subjective claims of pain and limitation of motion with the requisite objective medical findings (see, Taber v Skulicz, 265 AD2d 902; Stowell v Safee, 251…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Stowell v. SafeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  2. Taber v. SkuliczAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Calucci v. BakerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  2. Omar v. GoodmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  3. Nitti v. ClerricoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API