Bolyachevsky v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bolyachevsky v. New York City Transit Authority

27 A.D.3d 682, 810 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 682 (Bolyachevsky v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Bolyachevsky v. New York City Transit Authority, 27 A.D.3d 682, 810 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated July 14, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of proving that the plaintiffs 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, 353 [2002]; Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they sustained a serious injury (see Ali v Vasquez, 19 AD3d 520, 521 [2005]; Suk Ching Yeung v [683]*683Rojas, 18 AD3d 863 [2005]; Nemchyonok v Peng Liu Ying, 2 AD3d 421 [2003]; Ifrach v Neiman, 306 AD2d 380, 380-381 [2003]; Bourgeois v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Forest Hills, 290 AD2d 525, 526 [2002]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, 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, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated July 14, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of proving that the plaintiffs 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, 353 [2002]; Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they sustained a serious injury (see Ali v Vasquez, 19 AD3d 520, 521 [2005]; Suk Ching Yeung v [683]*683Rojas, 18 AD3d 863 [2005]; Nemchyonok v Peng Liu Ying, 2 AD3d 421 [2003]; Ifrach v Neiman, 306 AD2d 380, 380-381 [2003]; Bourgeois v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Forest Hills, 290 AD2d 525, 526 [2002]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 682, 810 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolyachevsky-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack