Hayden v. Plotkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayden v. Plotkin

278 A.D.2d 455, 718 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13846

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 455 (Hayden v. Plotkin) 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

Hayden v. Plotkin, 278 A.D.2d 455, 718 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered February 2, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiffs injuries were not serious through the affirmed report of an orthopedist, who examined her and concluded that she sustained nothing more serious than a mild knee contusion which had resolved (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs affirmations in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Cruse v Berman, 276 AD2d 580; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). O’Brien, J. P., Kratisman, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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 (DiNoto, J.), entered February 2, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiffs injuries were not serious through the affirmed report of an orthopedist, who examined her and concluded that she sustained nothing more serious than a mild knee contusion which had resolved (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs affirmations in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Cruse v Berman, 276 AD2d 580; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). O’Brien, J. P., Kratisman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 455, 718 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-plotkin-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack