Martinez v. Ehrenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Ehrenfeld

56 A.D.2d 533, 868 N.Y.S.2d 81

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 533 (Martinez v. Ehrenfeld) 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. Ehrenfeld, 56 A.D.2d 533, 868 N.Y.S.2d 81 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated June 18, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he 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, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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, 351 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant failed to address the plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained an injury to his testicular region as a result of the subject accident (see Coleman v Shangri-La Taxi, Inc., 49 AD3d 587 [2008]; Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d 630, 630-631 [2007]; O’Neal v Bronopolsky, 41 AD3d 452 [2007]). Since the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is unnecessary to consider whether the opposing papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coleman v Shangri-La Taxi, Inc., 49 AD3d 587 [2008]; Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d at 631; Coscia [534]*534v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Fisher, J.E, Lifson, Covello and Balkin, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated June 18, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he 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, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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, 351 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant failed to address the plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained an injury to his testicular region as a result of the subject accident (see Coleman v Shangri-La Taxi, Inc., 49 AD3d 587 [2008]; Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d 630, 630-631 [2007]; O’Neal v Bronopolsky, 41 AD3d 452 [2007]). Since the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is unnecessary to consider whether the opposing papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coleman v Shangri-La Taxi, Inc., 49 AD3d 587 [2008]; Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d at 631; Coscia [534]*534v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Fisher, J.E, Lifson, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 533, 868 N.Y.S.2d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-ehrenfeld-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack