Brourman v. Gorokhovsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brourman v. Gorokhovsky

89 A.D.3d 660, 931 N.Y.2d 890

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 660 (Brourman v. Gorokhovsky) 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

Brourman v. Gorokhovsky, 89 A.D.3d 660, 931 N.Y.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant failed to meet his 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, 956-957 [1992]). The papers the defendant submitted failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bills of particulars, that the plaintiff sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Reynolds v Wai Sang Leung, 78 AD3d 919, 920 [2010]; cf. Tinsley v Bah, 50 AD3d 1019, 1019-1020 [2008]).

Moreover, the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim that, as a result of the subject accident, a bone in her left foot sustained a fracture (see Olic v Pappas, 47 AD3d 780 [2008]).

In light of the defendant’s failure to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant failed to meet his 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, 956-957 [1992]). The papers the defendant submitted failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bills of particulars, that the plaintiff sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Reynolds v Wai Sang Leung, 78 AD3d 919, 920 [2010]; cf. Tinsley v Bah, 50 AD3d 1019, 1019-1020 [2008]).

Moreover, the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim that, as a result of the subject accident, a bone in her left foot sustained a fracture (see Olic v Pappas, 47 AD3d 780 [2008]).

In light of the defendant’s failure to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 660, 931 N.Y.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brourman-v-gorokhovsky-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack