Hennessy v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hennessy v. Verizon New York, Inc.

8 A.D.3d 619, 778 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 619 (Hennessy v. Verizon New York, Inc.) 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

Hennessy v. Verizon New York, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 619, 778 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated June 25, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he 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, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment since they failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). Therefore, we need not address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, 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, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated June 25, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he 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, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment since they failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). Therefore, we need not address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 619, 778 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hennessy-v-verizon-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack