Jorge v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jorge v. Sutton

128 A.D.2d 837, 513 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44525

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 837 (Jorge v. Sutton) 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

Jorge v. Sutton, 128 A.D.2d 837, 513 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, [838]*838Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated April 7, 1986, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to meet the threshold requirement of a "serious injury” as defined under Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and § 5104 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although in the first instance the plaintiff must establish, prima facie, the existence of a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant movants, in seeking the drastic remedy of summary judgment, have the burden of tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form to show that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Brown v Visan Fuel Oil Co., 114 AD2d 396; Merlis v Lupo, 108 AD2d 902). On this record, we conclude that the defendants did not sustain their burden. In the posture of this case, accepting as true the evidence favoring the plaintiff, we find that the plaintiff’s claim of a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law presents a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, [838]*838Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated April 7, 1986, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to meet the threshold requirement of a "serious injury” as defined under Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and § 5104 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although in the first instance the plaintiff must establish, prima facie, the existence of a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant movants, in seeking the drastic remedy of summary judgment, have the burden of tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form to show that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Brown v Visan Fuel Oil Co., 114 AD2d 396; Merlis v Lupo, 108 AD2d 902). On this record, we conclude that the defendants did not sustain their burden. In the posture of this case, accepting as true the evidence favoring the plaintiff, we find that the plaintiff’s claim of a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law presents a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 837, 513 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorge-v-sutton-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack