Dwyer v. Leitner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dwyer v. Leitner

299 A.D.2d 517, 750 N.Y.S.2d 502

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 517 (Dwyer v. Leitner) 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

Dwyer v. Leitner, 299 A.D.2d 517, 750 N.Y.S.2d 502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover dam[518]*518ages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated August 23, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Brendan P. Dwyer did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s medical proof established the defendant’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, on the ground that the plaintiff Brendan P. Dwyer did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345). The physician’s affirmation submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lentini v Melina, 287 AD2d 550; Barbeito v Kesev Taxi, 281 AD2d 379; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774; cf. Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover dam[518]*518ages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated August 23, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Brendan P. Dwyer did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s medical proof established the defendant’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, on the ground that the plaintiff Brendan P. Dwyer did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345). The physician’s affirmation submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lentini v Melina, 287 AD2d 550; Barbeito v Kesev Taxi, 281 AD2d 379; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774; cf. Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 517, 750 N.Y.S.2d 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwyer-v-leitner-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack