Baulete v. L&N Car Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baulete v. L&N Car Service, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 6346, 153 A.D.3d 896, 60 N.Y.S.3d 429

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

DecidedAugust 30, 2017

Docket2015-11583

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6346 (Baulete v. L&N Car Service, Inc.) 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

Baulete v. L&N Car Service, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 6346, 153 A.D.3d 896, 60 N.Y.S.3d 429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants L&N Car Service, Inc., and Albertano Batista appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated August 6, 2015, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants L&N Car Service, Inc., and Albertano Batista (hereinafter together the appellants) met their prima facie burden of showing 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]). The appellants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine and to the plaintiff’s left shoulder did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or signifi *897 cant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine and to his left shoulder under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Bar-ros and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 defendants L&N Car Service, Inc., and Albertano Batista appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated August 6, 2015, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants L&N Car Service, Inc., and Albertano Batista (hereinafter together the appellants) met their prima facie burden of showing 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]). The appellants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine and to the plaintiff’s left shoulder did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or signifi *897 cant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine and to his left shoulder under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Bar-ros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6346, 153 A.D.3d 896, 60 N.Y.S.3d 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baulete-v-ln-car-service-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack