Merely using the word doesn’t make the plan ‘significant’
Mahoney ’91 [Mahoney et al.; 1991; Judge for the Supreme Court of New York, Flater, Respondent, v. Brennan et al., Appellants No. 62500 Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 173 A.D.2d 945; 569 N.Y.S.2d 808; 1991 N.Y. App. Div. lexis 5445]
The term "significant" means that the claimed limitation must be "'something more than a minor limitation of use'" ( Colvin v Maille, 127 AD2d 926, lv denied 69 NY2d 611, quoting Licari v Elliott, supra, at 236; see, Kordana v Pomellito, 121 AD2d 783, 785, appeal dismissed 68 NY2d 848). Mere use of the conclusory word "significant" in the affidavit of a treating physician is not sufficient to establish serious injury (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Leschen v Kollarits, 144 AD2d 122).