Bitterman v. Dennis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bitterman v. Dennis

78 A.D.3d 627, 909 N.Y.S.2d 672

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated September 3, 2009, which denied her 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]), with respect to the plaintiffs allegation that she sustained a left shoulder injury as a result of the subject accident (see McMillian v Naparano, 61 AD3d 943 [2009]; O'Neal v Bronopolsky, 41 AD3d 452 [2007]; Hughes v Cai, 31 AD3d 385 [2006]; Loadholt v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD3d 352 [2004]).

Since the defendant failed to satisfy her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Mc-Millian v Naparano, 61 AD3d at 943; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, 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, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated September 3, 2009, which denied her 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]), with respect to the plaintiffs allegation that she sustained a left shoulder injury as a result of the subject accident (see McMillian v Naparano, 61 AD3d 943 [2009]; O'Neal v Bronopolsky, 41 AD3d 452 [2007]; Hughes v Cai, 31 AD3d 385 [2006]; Loadholt v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD3d 352 [2004]).

Since the defendant failed to satisfy her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Mc-Millian v Naparano, 61 AD3d at 943; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

Bitterman v. Dennis, 78 A.D.3d 627, 909 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

78 A.D.3d 627 (Bitterman v. Dennis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related