Fisher v. Cho Pyung Choi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fisher v. Cho Pyung Choi

289 A.D.2d 523, 735 N.Y.S.2d 784, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13090

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the [524]*524Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated March 26, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant Cho Pyung Choi, in which the defendant Roy A. Campbell joined, 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 payable to the respondent Cho Pyung Choi.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Monette v Keller, 281 AD2d 523; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 84). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, 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 [524]*524Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated March 26, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant Cho Pyung Choi, in which the defendant Roy A. Campbell joined, 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 payable to the respondent Cho Pyung Choi.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Monette v Keller, 281 AD2d 523; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 84). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Fisher v. Cho Pyung Choi, 289 A.D.2d 523, 735 N.Y.S.2d 784, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

289 A.D.2d 523 (Fisher v. Cho Pyung Choi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related