In Lindo v. Brett, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 02749 (1st Dept. 2017) the “[p]laintiff’s deposition testimony that he missed two weeks of work after the accident defeat[ed] his 90/180-day claim.”
See also Corporan v. Erichsen, 148 AD3d 549 (1st Dept. 2017) (“Given that plaintiff did not miss any work, plaintiff’s affidavit and his expert’s affidavit were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” under the 90/180-category).
De La Rosa v. Okwan, 146 AD3d 644 (1st Dept. 2017) (“plaintiff failed to substantiate her claimed loss of work with proof that her absences from work were medically determined”);
Fathi v. Sodhi, 146 AD3d 445 (1st Dept. 2017) (“Defendants demonstrated prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain an injury within the 90/180-day category through plaintiff’s bill of particulars and his testimony, which established that he was confined to bed and home for, at most, two weeks, as well as their expert’s opinion that the claimed physical injuries were causally unrelated to the accident.”).
Brownie v. Redman, 145 AD3d 636 (1st Dept. 2016) (“Although defendants’ expert did not examine plaintiff until more than two years after the accident, defendants established that plaintiff did not suffer a 90/180-day claim by relying on her admission in her verified bill of particulars that she was confined to home and bed for just one week after the accident”).