Guevara v. Keen

129 A.D.3d 1024, 10 N.Y.S.3d 460
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 2015
Docket2014-10182
StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 1024 (Guevara v. Keen) 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
Guevara v. Keen, 129 A.D.3d 1024, 10 N.Y.S.3d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated July 28, 2014, which granted the defendants’ 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) 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 and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine and to her left knee 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 generally Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]). The defendants submitted further evidence that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the *1025 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Cohen, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
774 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Gaddy v. Eyler
591 N.E.2d 1176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Staff v. Mair Yshua
59 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Che Hong Kim v. Kossoff
90 A.D.3d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 A.D.3d 1024, 10 N.Y.S.3d 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guevara-v-keen-nyappdiv-2015.