Mullen v. Lauffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mullen v. Lauffer

31 A.D.3d 402, 820 N.Y.S.2d 61

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 402 (Mullen v. Lauffer) 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

Mullen v. Lauffer, 31 A.D.3d 402, 820 N.Y.S.2d 61 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated September 12, 2005, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on [403]*403the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to make 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The defendant’s examining neurologist found that the plaintiff continued to have restrictions in motion of her cervical spine approximately two years after the accident. In light of this finding by the defendant’s expert, the defendant did not meet her initial burden on her motion (see Kaminsky v Waldner, 19 AD3d 370 [2005]; Omar v Bello, 13 AD3d 430 [2004]; McDowall v Abreu, 11 AD3d 590 [2004]; Scotti v Boutureira, 8 AD3d 652 [2004]). Since the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated September 12, 2005, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on [403]*403the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to make 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The defendant’s examining neurologist found that the plaintiff continued to have restrictions in motion of her cervical spine approximately two years after the accident. In light of this finding by the defendant’s expert, the defendant did not meet her initial burden on her motion (see Kaminsky v Waldner, 19 AD3d 370 [2005]; Omar v Bello, 13 AD3d 430 [2004]; McDowall v Abreu, 11 AD3d 590 [2004]; Scotti v Boutureira, 8 AD3d 652 [2004]). Since the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 402, 820 N.Y.S.2d 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-lauffer-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack