Chisari v. Grodzki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chisari v. Grodzki

282 A.D.2d 641, 723 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3985

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 641 (Chisari v. Grodzki) 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

Chisari v. Grodzki, 282 A.D.2d 641, 723 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 29, 2000, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Stephen Grodzki which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Stephen Grodzki made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). It was then incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Pramnieks v Bush, 272 AD2d 596; Nikolopolous v Brown, 270 [642]*642AD2d 240; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79; Shay v Jerkins, 263 AD2d 475; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266). The Supreme Court, therefore, properly granted Grodzki’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 29, 2000, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Stephen Grodzki which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Stephen Grodzki made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). It was then incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Pramnieks v Bush, 272 AD2d 596; Nikolopolous v Brown, 270 [642]*642AD2d 240; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79; Shay v Jerkins, 263 AD2d 475; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266). The Supreme Court, therefore, properly granted Grodzki’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 641, 723 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chisari-v-grodzki-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack