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

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 458 (Luberto v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 458, 717 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luberto-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack