Lee v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. Singh

56 A.D.2d 662, 867 N.Y.S.2d 339

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 662 (Lee v. Singh) 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. Singh, 56 A.D.2d 662, 867 N.Y.S.2d 339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated January 7, 2008, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[663]*663Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants did not meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiffs 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]). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to consider whether the opposing papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coleman v Shangri-La Taxi, Inc., 49 AD3d 587 [2008]; Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d 630, 631 [2007]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Fisher, J.P., Lifson, Covello and Balkin, 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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated January 7, 2008, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[663]*663Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants did not meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiffs 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]). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to consider whether the opposing papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coleman v Shangri-La Taxi, Inc., 49 AD3d 587 [2008]; Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d 630, 631 [2007]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Fisher, J.P., Lifson, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 662, 867 N.Y.S.2d 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-singh-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack