Joris v. UMF Car & Limo Service

82 A.D.3d 1050, 919 N.Y.2d 360

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1050 (Joris v. UMF Car & Limo Service) 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
Joris v. UMF Car & Limo Service, 82 A.D.3d 1050, 919 N.Y.2d 360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

The appellants failed to meet 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]).

Since the appellants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Linton v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821, 822 [2010]; Bright v Moussa, 72 AD3d 859, 860 [2010]; Menezes v Khan, 67 AD3d 654, 654-655 [2009]). Mastro, J.E, Angiolillo, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Linton v. Nawaz
926 N.E.2d 593 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
774 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Gaddy v. Eyler
591 N.E.2d 1176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Menezes v. Khan
67 A.D.3d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Bright v. Moussa
72 A.D.3d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.3d 1050, 919 N.Y.2d 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joris-v-umf-car-limo-service-nyappdiv-2011.