Burgos v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgos v. Castro

99 A.D.3d 848, 951 N.Y.2d 897

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 17, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[849] The defendants met 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, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of his spine within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied. Dillon, J.P, Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

[849] The defendants met 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, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of his spine within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied. Dillon, J.P, Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

Burgos v. Castro, 99 A.D.3d 848, 951 N.Y.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

99 A.D.3d 848 (Burgos v. Castro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related