Barroso v. Kristensen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barroso v. Kristensen

46 A.D.3d 731, 847 N.Y.S.2d 482

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 731 (Barroso v. Kristensen) 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

Barroso v. Kristensen, 46 A.D.3d 731, 847 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated September 7, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he 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 prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated September 7, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he 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 prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 731, 847 N.Y.S.2d 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barroso-v-kristensen-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack