Bourbakis v. Boron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bourbakis v. Boron

24 A.D.3d 406, 804 N.Y.S.2d 685

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 406 (Bourbakis v. Boron) 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

Bourbakis v. Boron, 24 A.D.3d 406, 804 N.Y.S.2d 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Jacek Boron and Complete Cab Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated April 30, 2004, 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.

The appellants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident through the affirmed medical reports submitted in support of their motion (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Manceri v Bowe, 19 AD3d 462 [2005]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff’s papers in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (id.). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, 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 Jacek Boron and Complete Cab Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated April 30, 2004, 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.

The appellants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident through the affirmed medical reports submitted in support of their motion (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Manceri v Bowe, 19 AD3d 462 [2005]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff’s papers in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (id.). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 406, 804 N.Y.S.2d 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bourbakis-v-boron-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack