Marte v. Gregory

2017 NY Slip Op 297, 146 A.D.3d 874, 44 N.Y.S.3d 765
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 18, 2017
Docket2016-01932
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 297 (Marte v. Gregory) 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
Marte v. Gregory, 2017 NY Slip Op 297, 146 A.D.3d 874, 44 N.Y.S.3d 765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated February 1, 2016, which denied his 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, with costs.

The defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The papers submitted by the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiff’s claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, *875 that he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977 [2010]). Since the defendant failed to meet his 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 Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Smith v. R & F Limousine Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 30036 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Parker v. Islam
2023 NY Slip Op 34570 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023)
Paris v. Rigo-Li Auto Corp.
2023 NY Slip Op 34575 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023)
Martinez v. Ruggiero
2023 NY Slip Op 34572 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 297, 146 A.D.3d 874, 44 N.Y.S.3d 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marte-v-gregory-nyappdiv-2017.