Kinchler v Cruz
2005 NY Slip Op 08079
Decided on October 31, 2005
Appellate Division, Second Department
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on October 31, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
STEVEN W. FISHER
JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER

2004-10159

[*1]Diana Kinchler, appellant,

v

Kelvin Cruz, et al., respondents. (Index No. 0031/02)





Bruce J. Gitlin, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle & Oleson, White
Plains, N.Y. (Montgomery L. Effinger of
counsel), for respondent Kelvin
Cruz.
Mary Audi Bjork (Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone,
Suffern, N.Y. [William S. Badura]
of counsel), for respondent Michael
McIntee.
O'Connor, Redd, Gollihue & Sklarin, LLP, White Plains,
N.Y. (Laura Freeman of counsel),
for respondent Rudolf Rottmeier.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated October 12, 2004, which granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The defendants made prima facie showings, through a copy of the plaintiff's deposition testimony and the affirmed reports of their medical experts, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Batista v Olivo, 17 AD3d 494; Grant v Fofana, 10 AD3d 446). The affirmation of the plaintiff's physician was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, since his diagnosis of tinnitus was based solely upon the plaintiff's subjective complaints [*2](see Congdon v Preisman, 263 AD2d 808; cf. Preston v Young, 239 AD2d 729).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
COZIER, J.P., SANTUCCI, LUCIANO, FISHER and COVELLO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.