Dozier v. Lee

110 A.D.3d 670, 973 N.Y.S.2d 653
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 2, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 A.D.3d 670 (Dozier v. Lee) 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
Dozier v. Lee, 110 A.D.3d 670, 973 N.Y.S.2d 653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the [671]*671defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered November 30, 2012, which denied their 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating 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, 350 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Karpinos v Cora, 89 AD3d 994, 995 [2011]). Since the defendants failed to meet their 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 generally Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ 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). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kluska v. Montefiore St. Luke's Cornwall
2025 NY Slip Op 50718(U) (New York Supreme Court, Orange County, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 A.D.3d 670, 973 N.Y.S.2d 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dozier-v-lee-nyappdiv-2013.