Dennis v. Van Bergen-Henegouwen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dennis v. Van Bergen-Henegouwen

281 A.D.2d 383, 721 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2080

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 383 (Dennis v. Van Bergen-Henegouwen) 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

Dennis v. Van Bergen-Henegouwen, 281 A.D.2d 383, 721 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated May 26, 2000, 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).

[384]*384Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant submitted sufficient evidence to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden. Thus, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment (see, Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 (Rudolph, J.), dated May 26, 2000, 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).

[384]*384Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant submitted sufficient evidence to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden. Thus, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment (see, Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 383, 721 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-van-bergen-henegouwen-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack