Kumar v. Hoppe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kumar v. Hoppe

257 A.D.2d 609, 683 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 388

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 609 (Kumar v. Hoppe) 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

Kumar v. Hoppe, 257 A.D.2d 609, 683 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated May 8, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their initial burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to create an issue of fact to demonstrate a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so, and thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated May 8, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their initial burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to create an issue of fact to demonstrate a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so, and thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 609, 683 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kumar-v-hoppe-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack