Brown v. Visan Fuel Oil Co.
This text of 114 A.D.2d 396 (Brown v. Visan Fuel Oil Co.) 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.
Opinion
—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated December 19, 1984, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to meet the threshold requirement of establishing "[sjerious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Order affirmed, with costs.
"Summary judgment is an appropriate vehicle for determining whether a plaintiff can establish, prima facie, a serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (formerly Insurance Law § 671 [4]) (Zoldas v Louise Cab Corp., 108 AD2d 378, 381). Nevertheless, a defendant movant has the burden of showing "entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853; see, Friends of Animals v [397]*397Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). In the instant case, the defendants have failed to meet their burden. Accordingly, the denial of their motion for summary judgment was proper.
Under these circumstances, we need not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
114 A.D.2d 396, 494 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-visan-fuel-oil-co-nyappdiv-1985.