Kouroupis v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kouroupis v. New York City Transit Authority

27 A.D.3d 529, 810 N.Y.S.2d 351

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 529 (Kouroupis v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Kouroupis v. New York City Transit Authority, 27 A.D.3d 529, 810 N.Y.S.2d 351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J), dated November 11, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Carmen Kouroupis did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Carmen Kouroupis did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Boone v New York City Tr. Auth., 263 AD2d 463 [1999]; see generally Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]). In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J), dated November 11, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Carmen Kouroupis did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Carmen Kouroupis did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Boone v New York City Tr. Auth., 263 AD2d 463 [1999]; see generally Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]). In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 529, 810 N.Y.S.2d 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kouroupis-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack