Isakov v. Day

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Isakov v. Day

15 A.D.3d 622, 789 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2029

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2005·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated June 5, 2003, which denied his 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[623] Once the defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury, the plaintiff was required to come forward with competent admissible evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79 [2000]). However, the affirmation of the plaintiff’s physician submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment in his favor dismissing the complaint. Adams, J.E, Cozier, Ritter 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated June 5, 2003, which denied his 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[623] Once the defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury, the plaintiff was required to come forward with competent admissible evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79 [2000]). However, the affirmation of the plaintiff’s physician submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment in his favor dismissing the complaint. Adams, J.E, Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Isakov v. Day, 15 A.D.3d 622, 789 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

15 A.D.3d 622 (Isakov v. Day) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related