Hrissikos v. Mian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hrissikos v. Mian

74 A.D.3d 1289, 903 N.Y.S.2d 248

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 29, 2010·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated June 23, 2009, 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursement.

The defendants satisfied their 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, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761 [2009]; Berson v Rosada Cab Corp., 62 AD3d 636, 637 [2009]; Byrd v J.R.R. Limo, 61 AD3d 801, 802 [2009]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Roman, 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, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated June 23, 2009, 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursement.

The defendants satisfied their 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, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761 [2009]; Berson v Rosada Cab Corp., 62 AD3d 636, 637 [2009]; Byrd v J.R.R. Limo, 61 AD3d 801, 802 [2009]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Hrissikos v. Mian, 74 A.D.3d 1289, 903 N.Y.S.2d 248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

74 A.D.3d 1289 (Hrissikos v. Mian) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related