Lopez v. Kelleher

100 A.D.3d 972, 954 N.Y.S.2d 643
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 28, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 A.D.3d 972 (Lopez v. Kelleher) 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
Lopez v. Kelleher, 100 A.D.3d 972, 954 N.Y.S.2d 643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated February 28, 2012, 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) as a result of the subject accident.

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

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating 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, 350 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (cf. Tinsley v Bah, 50 AD3d 1019, 1019-1020 [2008]).

Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gonzalez v. Houmita
104 A.D.3d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 A.D.3d 972, 954 N.Y.S.2d 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-kelleher-nyappdiv-2012.