Herzberg v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

84 A.D.3d 874, 923 N.Y.S.2d 843
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 10, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 874 (Herzberg v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, 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
Herzberg v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 874, 923 N.Y.S.2d 843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), entered July 26, 2010, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Louis Herzberg did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

While we affirm the order appealed from, we do so on a ground different from that relied upon by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court erred in concluding that the defendant met its prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Louis Herzberg (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), who allegedly sustained injuries to, inter alia, his temporomandibular joints (hereinafter TMJs) as a result of the subject accident, 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, 955-956 [1992]). The defendant’s submissions did not es[875]*875tablish, prima facie, that the alleged injuries did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (cf. Scotti v Boutureira, 8 AD3d 652 [2004]), or that the injuries were not caused by the subject accident.

Since the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Savage v. Quinn
91 A.D.3d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 A.D.3d 874, 923 N.Y.S.2d 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herzberg-v-orange-rockland-utilities-inc-nyappdiv-2011.