Haque v. City of New York
This text of 97 A.D.3d 636 (Haque v. City of New York) 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.
Opinion
The defendants failed to meet 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 failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim that as a result of the subject accident, he sustained certain psychological injuries constituting a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Krayn v Torella, 40 AD3d 588 [2007]; see generally Kranis v Biederbeck, 83 AD3d [637]*637903 [2011]; Krivit v Pitula, 79 AD3d 1432 [2010]; Chapman v Capoccia, 283 AD2d 798 [2001]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Krayn v Torella, 40 AD3d at 588). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
97 A.D.3d 636, 947 N.Y.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haque-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.