Nour v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nour v. Klein

89 A.D.3d 907, 932 N.Y.2d 708

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 907 (Nour v. Klein) 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

Nour v. Klein, 89 A.D.3d 907, 932 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The papers the defendant submitted failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that the plaintiff sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see DeVille v Barry, 41 AD3d 763, 763-764 [2007]).

[908]*908Since the defendant did not sustain his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (id.).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Eng, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The papers the defendant submitted failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that the plaintiff sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see DeVille v Barry, 41 AD3d 763, 763-764 [2007]).

[908]*908Since the defendant did not sustain his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (id.).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Eng, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 907, 932 N.Y.2d 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nour-v-klein-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack