Douglas v. Zhi Wei He

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Douglas v. Zhi Wei He

275 A.D.2d 690, 713 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9177

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 690 (Douglas v. Zhi Wei He) 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

Douglas v. Zhi Wei He, 275 A.D.2d 690, 713 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (I. Aronin, J.), dated October [691]*69120, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff Anthony Douglas did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 239). The burden thus shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955).

The plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. The written statements of the injured plaintiffs treating physician submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment did not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Cwiekala v Siddon, 267 AD2d 193; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526; Gilphilin v Ware, 205 AD2d 353). Accordingly, the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of issues of fact which require a trial (see, Licari v Elliott, supra; Gaddy v Eyler, supra). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (I. Aronin, J.), dated October [691]*69120, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff Anthony Douglas did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 239). The burden thus shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955).

The plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. The written statements of the injured plaintiffs treating physician submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment did not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Cwiekala v Siddon, 267 AD2d 193; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526; Gilphilin v Ware, 205 AD2d 353). Accordingly, the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of issues of fact which require a trial (see, Licari v Elliott, supra; Gaddy v Eyler, supra). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 690, 713 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-zhi-wei-he-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack