McMillian v. Naparano

61 A.D.3d 943, 879 N.Y.S.2d 152
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 28, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 943 (McMillian v. Naparano) 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
McMillian v. Naparano, 61 A.D.3d 943, 879 N.Y.S.2d 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated August 15, 2008, as 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

While we affirm the order insofar as appealed from, we do so on a ground other than that relied upon by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court erred in concluding that the defendant met 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 defendant failed to satisfy his burden with respect to the plaintiffs allegation that he sustained a left knee injury as a result of the subject accident (see Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d 630 [2007]; O’Neal v Bronopolsky, 41 AD3d 452 [2007]; Hughes v Cai, 31 AD3d 385 [2006]; Loadholt v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD3d 352 [2004]).

Since the defendant failed to satisfy his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Monkhouse v Maven Limo, Inc., 44 AD3d 630 [2007]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Martinez v. Yi Zhong Chen
91 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Kharzis v. PV Holding Corp.
78 A.D.3d 1122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bitterman v. Dennis
78 A.D.3d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Kouyate v. Chowdhury
76 A.D.2d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Daly-Caffrey v. Licausi
70 A.D.3d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 A.D.3d 943, 879 N.Y.S.2d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillian-v-naparano-nyappdiv-2009.