Martinez v. Bernal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Bernal

303 A.D.2d 726, 756 N.Y.S.2d 864

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 726 (Martinez v. Bernal) 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

Martinez v. Bernal, 303 A.D.2d 726, 756 N.Y.S.2d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Graciela B. Martinez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 28, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by her on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the plaintiff [727]*727Graciela B. Martinez did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on her to come forward with admissible evidence to create an issue of fact (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). She failed to do so (see Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266 [1995]), and thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, 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 plaintiff Graciela B. Martinez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 28, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by her on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the plaintiff [727]*727Graciela B. Martinez did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on her to come forward with admissible evidence to create an issue of fact (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). She failed to do so (see Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266 [1995]), and thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 726, 756 N.Y.S.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-bernal-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack