Burrowes v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burrowes v. New York City Transit Authority

71 A.D.3d 714, 895 N.Y.S.2d 720

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 714 (Burrowes v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Burrowes v. New York City Transit Authority, 71 A.D.3d 714, 895 N.Y.S.2d 720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated January 27, 2009, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants 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, 956-957 [1992]).

Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whéther the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Page v Belmonte, 45 AD3d 825, 826 [2007]; Coscia v 938 [715]*715Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo, Hall and Lott, 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 plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated January 27, 2009, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants 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, 956-957 [1992]).

Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whéther the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Page v Belmonte, 45 AD3d 825, 826 [2007]; Coscia v 938 [715]*715Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 714, 895 N.Y.S.2d 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burrowes-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack