Joris v. UMF Car & Limo Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joris v. UMF Car & Limo Service

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 2011·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 1050 (Joris v. UMF Car & Limo Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related