Malik v. Rahman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malik v. Rahman

47 A.D.3d 901, 849 N.Y.S.2d 453

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 901 (Malik v. Rahman) 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

Malik v. Rahman, 47 A.D.3d 901, 849 N.Y.S.2d 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 19, 2007, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Sajid Malik on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Sajid Malik 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 [1992]).

Since the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs’ opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Pomaquiza v Sibri, 46 AD3d 531 [2007]; Sayers v Hot, 23 AD3d 453 [2005]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Carni, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 19, 2007, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Sajid Malik on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Sajid Malik 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 [1992]).

Since the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs’ opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Pomaquiza v Sibri, 46 AD3d 531 [2007]; Sayers v Hot, 23 AD3d 453 [2005]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 901, 849 N.Y.S.2d 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malik-v-rahman-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack