O'Neal v. Bronopolsky

41 A.D.3d 452, 835 N.Y.S.2d 910
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 5, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 452 (O'Neal v. Bronopolsky) 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
O'Neal v. Bronopolsky, 41 A.D.3d 452, 835 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated July 5, 2006, which 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, with costs.

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, 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 even address, much less satisfy, his burden with respect to the plaintiffs allegation that he suffered a knee injury as a result of the accident (see Hughes v Cai, 31 AD3d 385 [2006]; Loadholt v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD3d 352 [2004]). Since the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether the plaintiffs papers were suf[453]*453ficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, 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)
Bitterman v. Dennis
78 A.D.3d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
McMillian v. Naparano
61 A.D.3d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Lopez v. Felton
60 A.D.3d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rizzo v. Torchiano
57 A.D.3d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Martinez v. Ehrenfeld
56 A.D.2d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Merzguioui-Gray v. Shlomit Express Cab Corp.
56 A.D.2d 439 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Sajid v. Murzin
52 A.D.3d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Coleman v. Shangri-La Taxi, Inc.
49 A.D.3d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Monkhouse v. Maven Limo, Inc.
44 A.D.3d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 A.D.3d 452, 835 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-bronopolsky-nyappdiv-2007.