Barrera v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrera v. City of New York

270 A.D.2d 373, 704 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2963

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 373 (Barrera v. City of New York) 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

Barrera v. City of New York, 270 A.D.2d 373, 704 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2963 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Thomas Williams, New York City Housing Department of Police, and New York City Housing Authority Department of Police appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated February 23, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground [374]*374that 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 appellants’ motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The appellants met their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so, and thus, summary judgment should have been granted dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellants (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Thomas Williams, New York City Housing Department of Police, and New York City Housing Authority Department of Police appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated February 23, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground [374]*374that 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 appellants’ motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The appellants met their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so, and thus, summary judgment should have been granted dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellants (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 373, 704 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrera-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack