Montoya v. Crews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montoya v. Crews

2 A.D.3d 697, 768 N.Y.S.2d 620

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 697 (Montoya v. Crews) 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

Montoya v. Crews, 2 A.D.3d 697, 768 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated December 10, 2002, which denied their 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmations of the plaintiffs physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants’ [698]*698motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Trotter v Hart, 285 AD2d 772 [2001]; Williams v Ciaramella, 250 AD2d 763 [1998]; Cabri v Myung-Soo Park, 260 AD2d 525 [1999]; Waldman v Dong Kook Chang, 175 AD2d 204 [1991]; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assoc., 239 AD2d 394 [1997]). Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated December 10, 2002, which denied their 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmations of the plaintiffs physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants’ [698]*698motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Trotter v Hart, 285 AD2d 772 [2001]; Williams v Ciaramella, 250 AD2d 763 [1998]; Cabri v Myung-Soo Park, 260 AD2d 525 [1999]; Waldman v Dong Kook Chang, 175 AD2d 204 [1991]; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assoc., 239 AD2d 394 [1997]). Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 697, 768 N.Y.S.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montoya-v-crews-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack