Hanna v. Alverado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanna v. Alverado

16 A.D.3d 624, 791 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 624 (Hanna v. Alverado) 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

Hanna v. Alverado, 16 A.D.3d 624, 791 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), entered April 29, 2004, which denied her 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, with costs.

The affirmations of the defendant’s medical experts failed to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). We note that neither expert set forth the objective test or tests performed supporting their claims (see Zavala v DeSantis, 1 AD3d 354, 355 [2003]; Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]; Gamberg v Romeo, 289 AD2d 525, 526 [2001]; Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440 [2001]). Thus, the defendant failed to sustain her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. Accordingly, we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposing papers (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), entered April 29, 2004, which denied her 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, with costs.

The affirmations of the defendant’s medical experts failed to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). We note that neither expert set forth the objective test or tests performed supporting their claims (see Zavala v DeSantis, 1 AD3d 354, 355 [2003]; Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]; Gamberg v Romeo, 289 AD2d 525, 526 [2001]; Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440 [2001]). Thus, the defendant failed to sustain her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. Accordingly, we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposing papers (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 624, 791 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanna-v-alverado-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack