Acevedo v. Ryder TRS, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acevedo v. Ryder TRS, Inc.

287 A.D.2d 586, 731 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9870

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 586 (Acevedo v. Ryder TRS, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acevedo v. Ryder TRS, Inc., 287 A.D.2d 586, 731 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Ryders TRS, Inc., and James Galicia, and the defendant Edmundo Espinal separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated November 9, 2000, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the injured plaintiff 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 payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appellants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplain v Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, supra). Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Ryders TRS, Inc., and James Galicia, and the defendant Edmundo Espinal separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated November 9, 2000, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the injured plaintiff 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 payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appellants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplain v Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, supra). Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 586, 731 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acevedo-v-ryder-trs-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack