McPhaul-Morgan v. E.L. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McPhaul-Morgan v. E.L. Corp.

12 A.D.3d 353, 783 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12881

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 353 (McPhaul-Morgan v. E.L. Corp.) 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

McPhaul-Morgan v. E.L. Corp., 12 A.D.3d 353, 783 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 14, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Janice McPhaul-Morgan 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, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Janice McPhaul-Morgan did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Zavala v DeSantis, 1 AD3d 354 [2003]; Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]; Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440 [2001]). Thus, the motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt, Crane and Skelos, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 14, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Janice McPhaul-Morgan 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, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Janice McPhaul-Morgan did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Zavala v DeSantis, 1 AD3d 354 [2003]; Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]; Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440 [2001]). Thus, the motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt, Crane and Skelos, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 353, 783 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcphaul-morgan-v-el-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack