Aglio v. Reyes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aglio v. Reyes

277 A.D.2d 407, 716 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14112

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 407 (Aglio v. Reyes) 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

Aglio v. Reyes, 277 A.D.2d 407, 716 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 23, [408]*4082000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met his initial burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs failed to do so (see, Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Yagliyan v Gun Shik Yang, 241 AD2d 518; Gutierrez v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 240 AD2d 469; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 23, [408]*4082000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met his initial burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs failed to do so (see, Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Yagliyan v Gun Shik Yang, 241 AD2d 518; Gutierrez v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 240 AD2d 469; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 407, 716 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aglio-v-reyes-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack