Anderson v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Clark

94 A.D.3d 681, 941 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedApril 3, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.3d 681 (Anderson v. Clark) 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

Anderson v. Clark, 94 A.D.3d 681, 941 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated March 3, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their burden of establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject [682]*682accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The defendants submitted evidence establishing that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbosacral regions of the plaintiff’s spine, and to the plaintiffs left knee, did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]; Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]). The defendants also submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/ 180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see McIntosh v O’Brien, 69 AD3d 585, 587 [2010]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30625(U).]

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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated March 3, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their burden of establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject [682]*682accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The defendants submitted evidence establishing that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbosacral regions of the plaintiff’s spine, and to the plaintiffs left knee, did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]; Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]). The defendants also submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/ 180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see McIntosh v O’Brien, 69 AD3d 585, 587 [2010]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30625(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 681, 941 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-clark-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack