Bush v. Robbins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bush v. Robbins

61 A.D.3d 801, 877 N.Y.S.2d 688

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

DecidedApril 21, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 801 (Bush v. Robbins) 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

Bush v. Robbins, 61 A.D.3d 801, 877 N.Y.S.2d 688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J), entered May 6, 2008, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the submission of an affirmed medical report of one of the defendants’ orthopedists, Joseph E Laico, was sufficient for the defendants to meet their prima facie burden of showing that she 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 affirmation of the plaintiffs treating physician, Michael I. Weintraub, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Miller, Dickerson and Chambers, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J), entered May 6, 2008, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the submission of an affirmed medical report of one of the defendants’ orthopedists, Joseph E Laico, was sufficient for the defendants to meet their prima facie burden of showing that she 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 affirmation of the plaintiffs treating physician, Michael I. Weintraub, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Miller, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 801, 877 N.Y.S.2d 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-robbins-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack