Flores v. Luna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flores v. Luna

122 A.D.3d 671, 996 N.Y.S.2d 172

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2014

Docket2013-09807

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.3d 671 (Flores v. Luna) 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

Flores v. Luna, 122 A.D.3d 671, 996 N.Y.S.2d 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 1, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions of the plaintiffs spine, and to the plaintiffs chest, left shoulder, left wrist, left knee, left ankle, and left foot did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), and that the alleged injuries to the plaintiffs left shoulder and to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine were not caused by the accident in any event (see generally Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]). The defendants further submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]).

*672 In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 1, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions of the plaintiffs spine, and to the plaintiffs chest, left shoulder, left wrist, left knee, left ankle, and left foot did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), and that the alleged injuries to the plaintiffs left shoulder and to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine were not caused by the accident in any event (see generally Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]). The defendants further submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]).

*672 In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 671, 996 N.Y.S.2d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-luna-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack