Christie v. Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christie v. Harrison

113 A.D.3d 585, 977 N.Y.2d 898

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 585 (Christie v. Harrison) 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

Christie v. Harrison, 113 A.D.3d 585, 977 N.Y.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant failed to meet 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 papers submitted by the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see DeVille v Barry, 41 AD3d 763, 763-764 [2007]).

Since the defendant did not sustain her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant failed to meet 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 papers submitted by the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see DeVille v Barry, 41 AD3d 763, 763-764 [2007]).

Since the defendant did not sustain her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 585, 977 N.Y.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christie-v-harrison-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack