Gonzalez v. Grand Transportation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Grand Transportation, Inc.

262 A.D.2d 354, 691 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 354 (Gonzalez v. Grand Transportation, Inc.) 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

Gonzalez v. Grand Transportation, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 354, 691 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Grand Transportation, Inc., and Yaakov Cohen appeal,, and the defendants G.E. Capital Fleet Services, Jason C. Cryder, and PCI Energy Services separately appeal, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated June 19, 1998, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ respective motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient admissible [355]*355evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). Upon our review of the record, we find that the plaintiff failed to do so (see, Attivissimo v Kugler, 226 AD2d 658; Barrett v Howland, 202 AD2d 383; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 defendants Grand Transportation, Inc., and Yaakov Cohen appeal,, and the defendants G.E. Capital Fleet Services, Jason C. Cryder, and PCI Energy Services separately appeal, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated June 19, 1998, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ respective motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient admissible [355]*355evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). Upon our review of the record, we find that the plaintiff failed to do so (see, Attivissimo v Kugler, 226 AD2d 658; Barrett v Howland, 202 AD2d 383; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 354, 691 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-grand-transportation-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack