Dockery v. Budget Rent-a-Car

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dockery v. Budget Rent-a-Car

27 A.D.3d 413, 810 N.Y.S.2d 666

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 413 (Dockery v. Budget Rent-a-Car) 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

Dockery v. Budget Rent-a-Car, 27 A.D.3d 413, 810 N.Y.S.2d 666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated March 16, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Mark Anthony Guniss on the ground that that 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, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Mark Anthony Guniss did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511, 512 [2004]). Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff Mark Anthony Guniss to raise a triable issue of fact, and we need not consider the sufficiency of his opposition to the motion (see Facci v Kaminsky, 18 AD3d 806, 807 [2005]; Rich-Wing v Baboolal, 18 AD3d 726, 727 [2005]; Hanna v Alverado, 16 AD3d [414]*414624 [2005]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated March 16, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Mark Anthony Guniss on the ground that that 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, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Mark Anthony Guniss did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511, 512 [2004]). Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff Mark Anthony Guniss to raise a triable issue of fact, and we need not consider the sufficiency of his opposition to the motion (see Facci v Kaminsky, 18 AD3d 806, 807 [2005]; Rich-Wing v Baboolal, 18 AD3d 726, 727 [2005]; Hanna v Alverado, 16 AD3d [414]*414624 [2005]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 413, 810 N.Y.S.2d 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dockery-v-budget-rent-a-car-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack