Caputo v. Gutman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caputo v. Gutman

103 A.D.3d 606, 959 N.Y.S.2d 268

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 606 (Caputo v. Gutman) 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

Caputo v. Gutman, 103 A.D.3d 606, 959 N.Y.S.2d 268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated September 30, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

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

The defendant met her 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to the cervical region of her spine (see Hendrickson v Williams, 94 AD3d 1057 [2012]; Paul-Austin v McPherson, 91 AD3d 924 [2012]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether she did sustain such an injury (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296 [1999]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32758(U).]

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, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated September 30, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

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

The defendant met her 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to the cervical region of her spine (see Hendrickson v Williams, 94 AD3d 1057 [2012]; Paul-Austin v McPherson, 91 AD3d 924 [2012]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether she did sustain such an injury (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296 [1999]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32758(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 606, 959 N.Y.S.2d 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caputo-v-gutman-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack