Anderson v. Vano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Vano

251 A.D.2d 437, 675 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6887

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 437 (Anderson v. Vano) 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. Vano, 251 A.D.2d 437, 675 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated September 30, 1997, which denied his 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, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met his initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Once a defendant submits evidence demonstrating the lack of serious injury, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to overcome the motion (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). We [438]*438find that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden (see, Merisca v Alford, 243 AD2d 613; Baldasty v Cooper, 238 AD2d 367; Tobacco v Kasten, 229 AD2d 526; Jean-Mehu v Berbec, 215 AD2d 440; O’Neil v Rogers, 163 AD2d 466). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated September 30, 1997, which denied his 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, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met his initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Once a defendant submits evidence demonstrating the lack of serious injury, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to overcome the motion (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). We [438]*438find that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden (see, Merisca v Alford, 243 AD2d 613; Baldasty v Cooper, 238 AD2d 367; Tobacco v Kasten, 229 AD2d 526; Jean-Mehu v Berbec, 215 AD2d 440; O’Neil v Rogers, 163 AD2d 466). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 437, 675 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-vano-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack