Joseph v. Rockland Coaches, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Rockland Coaches, Inc.

127 A.D.3d 704, 9 N.Y.S.3d 878

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

DecidedApril 1, 2015

Docket2014-07036

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 704 (Joseph v. Rockland Coaches, Inc.) 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

Joseph v. Rockland Coaches, Inc., 127 A.D.3d 704, 9 N.Y.S.3d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Benoit Joseph appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, Jr., J.), dated May 23, 2014, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by him on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

*705 Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Benoit Joseph on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is denied.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Benoit Joseph 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]). The papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address Joseph’s claims, set forth in the bill of particulars, that he sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of his spine under either the permanent consequential or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), and that he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]).

Since the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by Joseph in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Joseph.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Roman, Cohen and Barros, 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 plaintiff Benoit Joseph appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, Jr., J.), dated May 23, 2014, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by him on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

*705 Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Benoit Joseph on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is denied.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Benoit Joseph 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]). The papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address Joseph’s claims, set forth in the bill of particulars, that he sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of his spine under either the permanent consequential or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), and that he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]).

Since the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by Joseph in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Joseph.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Roman, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 704, 9 N.Y.S.3d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-rockland-coaches-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack