Hallett v. Hassan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hallett v. Hassan

48 A.D.3d 417, 849 N.Y.S.2d 801

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 417 (Hallett v. Hassan) 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

Hallett v. Hassan, 48 A.D.3d 417, 849 N.Y.S.2d 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated May 23, 2007, which 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, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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]; see also Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated May 23, 2007, which 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, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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]; see also Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 417, 849 N.Y.S.2d 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallett-v-hassan-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack