Bonavoglia v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonavoglia v. Singh

32 A.D.3d 375, 820 N.Y.S.2d 517

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

DecidedAugust 1, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.3d 375 (Bonavoglia v. Singh) 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

Bonavoglia v. Singh, 32 A.D.3d 375, 820 N.Y.S.2d 517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Dee’s Associated and William Despagna appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated August 15, 2005, 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them since they failed to meet 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 [1992]; Browdame v Candura, 25 AD3d 747 [2006]; Paulino v Dedios, 24 AD3d 741 [2005]; Kaminsky v Waldner, 19 AD3d 370 [2005]; Berkowitz v Decker Transp. Co., 5 AD3d 712 [2004]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Since the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to the motion need not be considered (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, 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 Dee’s Associated and William Despagna appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated August 15, 2005, 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them since they failed to meet 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 [1992]; Browdame v Candura, 25 AD3d 747 [2006]; Paulino v Dedios, 24 AD3d 741 [2005]; Kaminsky v Waldner, 19 AD3d 370 [2005]; Berkowitz v Decker Transp. Co., 5 AD3d 712 [2004]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Since the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to the motion need not be considered (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 375, 820 N.Y.S.2d 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonavoglia-v-singh-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack