Bem v. Charno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bem v. Charno

276 A.D.2d 657, 715 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10666

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 657 (Bem v. Charno) 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

Bem v. Charno, 276 A.D.2d 657, 715 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated November 17, 1999, which denied their 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 motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to establish the existence of an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79; Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508; Thomas v Roach, 246 AD2d 591). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, 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 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated November 17, 1999, which denied their 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 motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to establish the existence of an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79; Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508; Thomas v Roach, 246 AD2d 591). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 657, 715 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bem-v-charno-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack