Hill v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hill v. New York City Transit Authority

272 A.D.2d 521, 708 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5826

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

DecidedMay 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 521 (Hill v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Hill v. New York City Transit Authority, 272 A.D.2d 521, 708 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 7, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), without prejudice to renewal at a time when the plaintiff is able to provide a medical affidavit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal at a time when the plaintiff is able to provide a medical affidavit in opposition to such a motion. The plaintiffs incarceration at the time of the instant motion prevented him from being examined in order to provide a medical affidavit in opposition, and it appeared that the plaintiff was due to be released in a few months. As a result, the Supreme Court properly concluded the plaintiff could be examined upon his release, and, upon renewal of the motion, could submit the relevant material in opposition (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Urcan v Cocarelli, 234 AD2d 537). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 7, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), without prejudice to renewal at a time when the plaintiff is able to provide a medical affidavit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal at a time when the plaintiff is able to provide a medical affidavit in opposition to such a motion. The plaintiffs incarceration at the time of the instant motion prevented him from being examined in order to provide a medical affidavit in opposition, and it appeared that the plaintiff was due to be released in a few months. As a result, the Supreme Court properly concluded the plaintiff could be examined upon his release, and, upon renewal of the motion, could submit the relevant material in opposition (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Urcan v Cocarelli, 234 AD2d 537). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 521, 708 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack