Alvarez v. Hayward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alvarez v. Hayward

280 A.D.2d 501, 720 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 501 (Alvarez v. Hayward) 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

Alvarez v. Hayward, 280 A.D.2d 501, 720 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated January 24, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants submitted proof in admissible form establishing that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs failed to sustain this burden (see, Cabri v Myung-Soo Park, 260 AD2d 525; Williams v Ciaramella, 250 AD2d 763; Miller v Donohue, 250 AD2d 825). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated January 24, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants submitted proof in admissible form establishing that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs failed to sustain this burden (see, Cabri v Myung-Soo Park, 260 AD2d 525; Williams v Ciaramella, 250 AD2d 763; Miller v Donohue, 250 AD2d 825). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 501, 720 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-v-hayward-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack