Jusino v. Gallagher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jusino v. Gallagher

287 A.D.2d 546, 731 N.Y.S.2d 474, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9534

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 546 (Jusino v. Gallagher) 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

Jusino v. Gallagher, 287 A.D.2d 546, 731 N.Y.S.2d 474, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated March 15, 2001, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[547]*547Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In support of his cross motion, the defendant submitted papers indicating that the injured plaintiff sustained herniated and bulging discs as a result of the accident at issue. The defendant then failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that those injuries were not causally related to the accident, or were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplin v Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, supra). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, 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, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated March 15, 2001, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[547]*547Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In support of his cross motion, the defendant submitted papers indicating that the injured plaintiff sustained herniated and bulging discs as a result of the accident at issue. The defendant then failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that those injuries were not causally related to the accident, or were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplin v Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, supra). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 546, 731 N.Y.S.2d 474, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jusino-v-gallagher-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack