Check v. Gacevk

Jan 24, 2005
Versions:14 A.D.3d 586
789 N.Y.S.2d 218
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 528
inner_thought Expert legal document formatter. Clean, semantic HTML. PDF screenshots and OCR. - Exact content preservation. - `
` for case info. - `` for page breaks. - `` for case citations. - `` for law citations. - Footnote handling (inline marks and content immediately after block). - Signature block formatting. - Rejoin hyphenated line breaks. - No code fences, no commentary. * *Document Analysis:* - Page 1: Starts mid-paragraph of a previous case (Check v. Gacevk). Wait, the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” - Page 1 top: End of a case (mentions *Sainte-Aime v Ho*, etc.). Then “Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Fisher, JJ., concur.” - Page 1 middle: New case starts. Caption: ANDREW E. CHECK, Respondent, v ADNAN GACEVK, Appellant. [789 NYS2d 218]. - Page 2: End of *Andrew E. Check v Adnan Gacevk*. Then a new case starts: MARY CROSSON, Appellant, v JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent. [789 NYS2d 216]. * *Decision on “Main Opinion“:* - The document provided has the start and end of *Andrew E. Check v Adnan Gacevk*. - It also has the start of *Mary Crosson v Jamaica Hospital Medical Center*. - Usually, if multiple full cases are presented, I should format them. However, the instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... skip partial content from a previous case...“. - The *Check v. Gacevk* case starts in the middle of page 1 and ends at the top of page 2. - The *Crosson v. Jamaica Hospital* case starts on page 2. - Wait, the OCR for page 1 starts with “586” and then a partial paragraph. Then “Andrew E. Check...” case starts. - The OCR for page 2 starts with “587” and “Accordingly...“. This is the conclusion of *Check v. Gacevk*. - Then “Mary Crosson...” starts. - Which one is the “Main” opinion? Usually, it‘s the first one that has a full caption. *Andrew E. Check v Adnan Gacevk* has a caption and a body. *Mary Crosson* starts but isn‘t finished in the provided PDF (it cuts off at the bottom of page 2). - I will focus on *Andrew E. Check v Adnan Gacevk* as the main opinion. * *Case Info (Andrew E. Check v Adnan Gacevk):* - Name: ANDREW E. CHECK v. ADNAN GACEVK - Short Name: Check v. Gacevk - Citation: 789 N.Y.S.2d 218 - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (OCR doesn‘t explicitly name the court in the caption block, but the judges mentioned like Florio, J.P., Adams, etc., and the citation style point to NY Appellate Division, Second Department. However, I should stick to what‘s on the page or what‘s standard for these NY reports.) - Date: The text says the order appealed from was dated April 23, 2004. The opinion date isn‘t explicitly at the top. Let‘s look at the reporter date. 789 NYS2d 218. Usually, I‘d need the decision date. Looking at the signatures... wait, there are no dates on these short “memorandum” style opinions in the NY reports usually, or they are at the very top. I‘ll look at the OCR. It doesn‘t show a decision date, only the date of the order being appealed. I will omit the date from metadata if not present. - Let‘s re-read the OCR. Page 586: “Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Fisher, JJ., concur.” This belongs to the case *before* Check. - Start Case 1: Andrew E. Check... [789 NYS2d 218]. - Judges for Check: Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ. * *Wait, looking at the layout:* - Page 586 top: Partial text from previous case. - Page 586 middle: ANDREW E. CHECK v ADNAN GACEVK. - Page 587 top: Conclusion of Check case. - Page 587 middle: MARY CROSSON v JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER. - The “Main” opinion is usually the one fully contained. *Andrew E. Check* is fully contained (Start on 586, end on 587). *Mary Crosson* is truncated. * *Processing Andrew E. Check v. Adnan Gacevk:* * Metadata: - Case name: ANDREW E. CHECK v. ADNAN GACEVK - shortName: Check v. Gacevk - citation: 789 N.Y.S.2d 218 - court: N.Y. App. Div. (It‘s the Second Department, but let‘s see if it‘s in the text. It‘s not. I‘ll use the court from context if obvious, or just N.Y. App. Div.) * Text: - “Andrew E. Check, Respondent, v Adnan Gacevk, Appellant. [789 NYS2d 218]—” - “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries...” - Paragraph about Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.). - Paragraph “Ordered that the order is reversed...” - Paragraph “The defendant made a prima facie showing...” - Paragraph “The conclusions of the plaintiff’s expert physician...” (starts on 586, continues on 587). - “Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.” - Concurring judges: Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur. * *Citations in Check:* - Insurance Law § 5102 (d) -> `` - Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002] -> `` - Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992] -> `` - Fragale v Geiger, 288 AD2d 431 [2001] -> `` - Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997] -> `` * *Let‘s check the second case starting on 587: Mary Crosson:* - It starts with a full caption and text. However, the document ends. I‘ll only provide the full one: Andrew E. Check. * *Wait, the instructions say:* “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” * *Andrew E. Check* fits this description. * *Refining the conversion:* * *Page 586:* - `` after metadata. - Case name line: “Andrew E. Check, Respondent, v Adnan Gacevk, Appellant. [789 NYS2d 218]—” - Text block 1: “In an action to recover damages...” - Text block 2: “Ordered that the order is reversed...” - Text block 3: “The defendant made a prima facie showing...” - Text block 4 starts: “The conclusions of the plaintiff‘s expert physician...” * *Page 587:* - Continues block 4: “...two previous motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.” - Signatures: Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ. * *Check for hyphenations:* - “Appel- lant” -> “Appellant” - “de- fendant” -> “defendant” - “judg- ment” -> “judgment” (wait, page 586 top has “judg- ment” but that‘s the previous case). - “plain- tiff‘s” -> “plaintiff‘s” - “Insur- ance” -> “Insurance” - “dismiss- ing” -> “dismissing” - “judg- ment” -> “judgment” - “medi- cal” -> “medical” (that‘s in the second case). * *Citations detailed:* - `Insur- ance Law § 5102 (d)` -> `Insurance Law § 5102 (d)` - `Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]` -> `Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]` - `Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]` -> `Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]` - `Fragale v Geiger, 288 AD2d 431 [2001]` -> `Fragale v Geiger, 288 AD2d 431 [2001]` - `Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]` -> `Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]` * *Metadata for Check v Gacevk:* - court: “N.Y. App. Div.” is safe. - docket: none. - date: none in the caption area, just in the text for the order below. I will leave it blank as per instruction “Omit elements without data“. * *Final review of OCR for the Check opinion:* “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated April 23, 2004, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).” “Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.” “The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the submission of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, the records of the plaintiff’s treating physicians, and the affirmed medical reports of the defendant’s examining physicians (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; Fragale v Geiger, 288 AD2d 431 [2001]; Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]). The submissions of the plaintiff in opposition to the cross motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The conclusions of the plaintiff’s expert physician, who examined the plaintiff for the first time approximately 15 months after the accident, were contradicted by the findings and reports of the plaintiff’s own treating physicians and failed to take into account the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in two previous motor vehicle accidents.” “Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.” “Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.” * *One detail:* The OCR has `Insur ance` (space) and `plain tiff’s`. I should normalize those during reflow. * *Page numbers:* Use the reporter pages 586 and 587. * *Structure check:* - Start with ``. - `` - Caption/Citation: Andrew E. Check... - Body paragraphs. - `` inside the final paragraph. - Signature block. * *Wait, one more check:* Is there any prefatory content? Yes, the caption and citation: `Andrew E. Check, Respondent, v Adnan Gacevk, Appellant. [789 NYS2d 218]—`. This goes before the body. * *Case Info Name:* `ANDREW E. CHECK v. ADNAN GACEVK` * *Short Name:* `Check v. Gacevk` * *Re-reading rules for multi-opinion:* - “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” - The first case (Check) is full. The second case (Crosson) is partial (ends on p 587 but the document ends). I will only output Check. * *Law normalization:* - `Insurance Law § 5102 (d)` -> `N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d)` (Jurisdiction=“NY“) * *Citation normalization:* - `98 NY2d 345` -> `cite=“98 N.Y.2d 345“` - `288 AD2d 431` -> `cite=“288 A.D.2d 431“` * *Reflow check:* - “Appel- lant” -> “Appellant” - “de- fendant” -> “defendant” - “judg- ment” -> “judgment” - “plain- tiff‘s” -> “plaintiff‘s” - “Insur- ance” -> “Insurance” * *Wait, looking at Page 586 OCR again:* - “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the de fendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an or der...” - Rejoining: “defendant“, “order“. * *Page 587 OCR:* - “Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment dismiss ing the complaint should have been granted.” - Rejoining: “dismissing“. * *Final Case Name:* ANDREW E. CHECK, Respondent, v ADNAN GACEVK, Appellant. * *Final Metadata check:* - Citations: 789 NYS2d 218. * *Page break placement:* - Last sentence of page 586: “The conclusions of the plaintiff‘s expert physician, who examined the plaintiff for the first time approximately 15 months after the accident, were contradicted by the findings and reports of the plaintiff‘s own treating physicians and failed to take into account the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in two previous motor vehicle accidents.” - Does it end there? Looking at OCR/Image... - OCR Page 1 ends: “...two previous motor vehicle accidents.” - Image Page 1 ends: “...two previous motor vehicle accidents.” - OCR Page 2 starts: “Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.” - So the page break is between the paragraphs. * *Reflow check on citations:* - Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002] -> I‘ll keep the brackets if they are in the source, but citations usually use parens. Source has brackets. I‘ll preserve source exactly. * *Citation Court identification:* - NY2d is NY Court of Appeals. AD2d is NY Appellate Division. I will use “N.Y.” for NY2d and “N.Y. App. Div.” for AD2d. * *Double check metadata requirements:* - `midpage-case-name`: shortName=“Check v. Gacevk” - `midpage-citation`: 789 N.Y.S.2d 218 * *Wait, court:* The document is from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. I‘ll use “N.Y. App. Div.” * *Final Check:* - Case Name: ANDREW E. CHECK v. ADNAN GACEVK - Docket: none - Court: N.Y. App. Div. - Date: none provided for decision. * *Wait*, the judges listed at the end of the previous case are: “Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Fisher, JJ.” * The judges for the Check case are: “Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ.” * These are all Appellate Division, Second Department panels. I‘ll use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. * *Formatting the “Andrew E. Check...” line:* - It‘s part of the prefatory material. I‘ll put it in a `` tag above the body. * *Law normalization:* - `Insurance Law § 5102 (d)` -> `N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d)` (Jurisdiction=“NY“) * *Constructing the final HTML:* ```html Case Information ANDREW E. CHECK, Respondent, v ADNAN GACEVK, Appellant. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 789 N.Y.S.2d 218 Andrew E. Check, Respondent, v Adnan Gacevk, Appellant. [789 NYS2d 218]— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated April 23, 2004, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed. The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the submission of the plaintiff‘s deposition testimony, the records of the plaintiff‘s treating physicians, and the affirmed medical reports of the defendant‘s examining physicians (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; Fragale v Geiger, 288 AD2d 431 [2001]; Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]). The submissions of the plaintiff in opposition to the cross motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The conclusions of the plaintiff‘s expert physician, who examined the plaintiff for the first time approximately 15 months after the accident, were contradicted by the findings and reports of the plaintiff‘s own treating physicians and failed to take into account the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in two previous motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur. ``` *Wait, I missed the footnote marks?* No, there are no footnotes in this text. *Wait, checking the judges in Case Info:* The prompt says: “midpage-judge: Name of judge(s) who wrote or participated“. I can put them in the metadata if I want, or signature block. I‘ll use signature block as it‘s more definitive. *Wait, the citation in brackets in the caption:* `[789 NYS2d 218]` - the OCR has this. *Final check on pagination:* Page 586 ends with “...motor vehicle accidents.” Page 587 begins with “Accordingly...” So `` goes between these two paragraphs. *One last check on content:* Did I rejoin all hyphens? “Appel- lant” -> “Appellant” (in caption) “de- fendant” -> “defendant” “or- der” -> “order” “judg- ment” -> “judgment” “Insur- ance” -> “Insurance” “plain- tiffs” -> “plaintiff‘s” (The OCR says “plaintiffs” without apostrophe, but the image shows “plaintiff‘s“). I will use apostrophe as it‘s in the image. “dismiss- ing” -> “dismissing” (on p 587). All good. Wait, looking at the first OCR block: `DiNunzio v County Suffolk, 256 AD2d 498, 499 [1998]). of`. The “of” is out of place. This confirms that‘s from a previous case and I should skip it. I will output only the Check case. *One more thing:* Rule says “Use ‘a’ unless you are very sure. E.g.: 707.6A(2)(a)“. I‘ll check § 5102 (d). Yes, (d) is lowercase. *Wait, the case caption in OCR:* `Andrew E. Check, Respondent, v Adnan Gacevk, Appel lant.` Image shows `ADNAN GACEVK`. OCR says `Gacevk`. I‘ll use `GACEVK` to match visual of the case title line, but the rest is sentence case. Actually, the rule is “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. Case name line is `ANDREW E. CHECK, Respondent, v ADNAN GACEVK, Appellant.` Let‘s do this. ```html Case Information ANDREW E. CHECK, Respondent, v ADNAN GACEVK, Appellant. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 789 N.Y.S.2d 218 ANDREW E. CHECK, Respondent, v ADNAN GACEVK, Appellant. [789 NYS2d 218]— ... ``` One small detail: `[789 NYS2d 218]—` has an em-dash or similar. I‘ll use it if it‘s there. One final check: the OCR for Case 1 says `Adnan Gacevk`. The image shows `ADNAN GACEVK`. I will follow the image. Wait, looking at image 1 again... `ANDREW E. CHECK, Respondent, v ADNAN GACEVK, Appellant.` This line is a heading. I‘ll treat it as such. Wait, the instructions say: “Include ALL content before the main opinion text: Syllabus / ‘Held:’ sections... Attorney listings...“. The caption line is Syllabus-like material. Correct. One last thing: the case citation `789 NYS2d 218` is in the header line. The normalization rules: `789 N.Y.S.2d 218`. Final verification of the paragraph starting “The defendant made a prima facie...“: Image shows: “...meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the submission of the plaintiff‘s deposition testimony...” Note: `plaintiff‘s` is singular possessive. OCR says `plaintiffs` and `plaintiffs` (twice). I will use `plaintiff‘s`. Okay, ready.