Lee v. Bornstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. Bornstein

306 A.D.2d 385, 760 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedJune 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 385 (Lee v. Bornstein) 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

Lee v. Bornstein, 306 A.D.2d 385, 760 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered June 24, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established a prima case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden (see Delpilar v Browne, 282 AD2d 647 [2001]; Goldin v Lee, 275 AD2d 341 [2000]; Soto v Fogg, 255 AD2d 502 [1998]; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266 [1995]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered June 24, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established a prima case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden (see Delpilar v Browne, 282 AD2d 647 [2001]; Goldin v Lee, 275 AD2d 341 [2000]; Soto v Fogg, 255 AD2d 502 [1998]; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266 [1995]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 385, 760 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-bornstein-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack