Coleman v. Shangri-La Taxi, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coleman v. Shangri-La Taxi, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 587, 852 N.Y.2d 794

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Virginia Coleman (hereinafter 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, 351 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants failed to even address the plaintiffs allegation that she suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of the subject accident (see Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d 630, 630-631 [2007]; O’Neal v Bronopolsky, 41 AD3d 452 [2007]; Hughes v Cai, 31 AD3d 385 [2006]; Loadholt v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD3d [588]*588352 [2004]). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to consider whether the opposing papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d at 631; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Virginia Coleman (hereinafter 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, 351 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants failed to even address the plaintiffs allegation that she suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of the subject accident (see Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d 630, 630-631 [2007]; O’Neal v Bronopolsky, 41 AD3d 452 [2007]; Hughes v Cai, 31 AD3d 385 [2006]; Loadholt v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD3d [588]*588352 [2004]). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to consider whether the opposing papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d at 631; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Coleman v. Shangri-La Taxi, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 587, 852 N.Y.2d 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 587 (Coleman v. Shangri-La Taxi, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related