Gwynn v. Soriano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gwynn v. Soriano

71 A.D.3d 580, 896 N.Y.S.2d 680

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 580 (Gwynn v. Soriano) 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

Gwynn v. Soriano, 71 A.D.3d 580, 896 N.Y.S.2d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered November 12, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, denied the motion of defendants Victor Soriano, Hector F. Mota, and Felix Tejeda for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed against all defendants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In opposition to defendants’ prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), plaintiff proffered neither objective medical evidence of significant limitations in his knee that were caused by the accident (see Jean v Kabaya, 63 AD3d 509 [2009]) nor competent medical proof substantiating his 90/180-day claim (see Nguyen v Abdel-Hamed, 61 AD3d 429 [2009]).

In view of the foregoing, the complaint should be dismissed against all defendants (see Lopez v Simpson, 39 AD3d 420 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, Nardelli and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered November 12, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, denied the motion of defendants Victor Soriano, Hector F. Mota, and Felix Tejeda for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed against all defendants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In opposition to defendants’ prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), plaintiff proffered neither objective medical evidence of significant limitations in his knee that were caused by the accident (see Jean v Kabaya, 63 AD3d 509 [2009]) nor competent medical proof substantiating his 90/180-day claim (see Nguyen v Abdel-Hamed, 61 AD3d 429 [2009]).

In view of the foregoing, the complaint should be dismissed against all defendants (see Lopez v Simpson, 39 AD3d 420 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, Nardelli and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 580, 896 N.Y.S.2d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gwynn-v-soriano-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack