Parker v. MTA Bus Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parker v. MTA Bus Co.

140 A.D.3d 718, 30 N.Y.S.3d 901

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

DecidedJune 1, 2016

Docket2015-05254

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 718 (Parker v. MTA Bus Co.) 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

Parker v. MTA Bus Co., 140 A.D.3d 718, 30 N.Y.S.3d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated March 20, 2015, which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was 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) as a result of the subject accident.

*719 Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to meet their 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, 955-956 [1992]). The papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address the plaintiff’s claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977 [2010]).

In light of the defendants’ failure to meet their 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 (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Maltese, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated March 20, 2015, which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was 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) as a result of the subject accident.

*719 Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to meet their 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, 955-956 [1992]). The papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address the plaintiff’s claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977 [2010]).

In light of the defendants’ failure to meet their 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 (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Maltese, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 718, 30 N.Y.S.3d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-mta-bus-co-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack