Grant v. Heli Trucker, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. Heli Trucker, Inc.

294 A.D.2d 538, 742 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5528

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

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 538 (Grant v. Heli Trucker, 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

Grant v. Heli Trucker, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 538, 742 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, [539]*539Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 13, 2001, as 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 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. The defendants established a prima facie case that the plaintiffs injuries were not serious through the affirmed reports of an orthopedist and a neurologist, both of whom examined her and found no evidence of disability (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The only competent medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition, a physician’s affirmation, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, 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 appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, [539]*539Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 13, 2001, as 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 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. The defendants established a prima facie case that the plaintiffs injuries were not serious through the affirmed reports of an orthopedist and a neurologist, both of whom examined her and found no evidence of disability (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The only competent medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition, a physician’s affirmation, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 538, 742 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-heli-trucker-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack