Levine v. Deposits Only, Inc.

58 A.D.3d 697, 872 N.Y.S.2d 149
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 697 (Levine v. Deposits Only, Inc.) 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
Levine v. Deposits Only, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 697, 872 N.Y.S.2d 149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated March 20, 2008, 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), and granted the [698]*698plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the plaintiffs cross motion is denied as academic.

This action arises from a collision involving a motor vehicle operated by the plaintiff and a truck owned by the defendant Deposits Only, Inc., and operated by the defendant Robert Kellett.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff 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, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; D'Alba v Yong-Ae Choi, 33 AD3d 650 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs medical submissions failed to address the finding of the defendants’ examining radiologist that the condition of the plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spines and right shoulder resulted from preexisting degeneration and was not caused by the subject accident (see Larkin v Goldstar Limo Corp., 46 AD3d 631 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiffs cross motion as academic. Fisher, J.E, Miller, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nieves v. Michael
73 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Iovino v. Scholl
69 A.D.3d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Reefer v. Adom Rental Transport, Inc.
68 A.D.3d 1086 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Lake v. Celen
27 Misc. 3d 284 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Shmerkovich v. Sitar Corp.
61 A.D.3d 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pamphile v. Bastien
61 A.D.3d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.3d 697, 872 N.Y.S.2d 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-deposits-only-inc-nyappdiv-2009.