Luberto v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Luberto v. New York City Transit Authority

278 A.D.2d 458, 717 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13934

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 26, 2000·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated December 6, 1999, which denied its 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 motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met its initial burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296; Carroll v Jennings, 264 AD2d 494; Rum v Pam Transp., 250 AD2d 751). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated December 6, 1999, which denied its 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 motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met its initial burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296; Carroll v Jennings, 264 AD2d 494; Rum v Pam Transp., 250 AD2d 751). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Luberto v. New York City Transit Authority, 278 A.D.2d 458, 717 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 458 (Luberto v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related