Hendrickson v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hendrickson v. Williams

94 A.D.3d 1057, 942 N.Y.S.2d 800

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

DecidedApril 24, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 1057 (Hendrickson v. Williams) 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

Hendrickson v. Williams, 94 A.D.3d 1057, 942 N.Y.S.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated August 4, 2010, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met his 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the plaintiffs spine and right shoulder did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]; Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]). The defendant also submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (cf. Leeber v Ward, 55 AD3d 563, 564 [2008]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.R, Florio, Leventhal and Lott, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated August 4, 2010, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met his 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the plaintiffs spine and right shoulder did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]; Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]). The defendant also submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (cf. Leeber v Ward, 55 AD3d 563, 564 [2008]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.R, Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 1057, 942 N.Y.S.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendrickson-v-williams-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack