You are here: / / Herniated Disc not “Serious Injury”—Insufficient Proof of Physical Lim...
, ,

Herniated Disc not “Serious Injury”—Insufficient Proof of Physical Limitations.

The Second Department reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury verdict.  The issue was whether the plaintiff had proven he sustained “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d).  The plaintiff had a bulging or herniated disk but did not provide objective proof of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations caused by the disc injury. In describing the criteria for analysis, the Court wrote:  “ ‘A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law will be granted where there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial…’ “.  Bacon v Bostany, 2011-08654, 2012-07634, Index No 997/08, Second Dept. 3-6-13

 

You might also like
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF UP TO 1.5 BILLION GALLONS OF RIVER WATER PER DAY TO COOL A POWER PLANT IS NOT A MINISTERIAL, NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT, THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) APPLIES TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1180 (d) (SPEEDING) WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT ON A DIFFERENT DATE AT THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS STREET STOP CASE, SOME OF THE POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY WAS REJECTED AS INCREDIBLE; THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEVEL THREE ENCOUNTER WAS JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND A CONDITIONAL ORDER WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Erroneous Discharge of Mortgage Can Be Set Aside Where No Detrimental Relia... Hospital Generally Not Liable for Negligence of Private Attending Physician...