Grossman v. Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grossman v. Wong

15 A.D.3d 442, 789 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1599

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 442 (Grossman v. Wong) 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

Grossman v. Wong, 15 A.D.3d 442, 789 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for [443]*443personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated February 26, 2004, as denied their cross 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 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]; see also Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188 [2000]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]), and the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. Adams, J.E, Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, 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 [443]*443personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated February 26, 2004, as denied their cross 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 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]; see also Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188 [2000]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]), and the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. Adams, J.E, Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 442, 789 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grossman-v-wong-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack