Poverud v. Kwartler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poverud v. Kwartler

90 A.D.3d 729, 934 N.Y.2d 351

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 729 (Poverud v. Kwartler) 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

Poverud v. Kwartler, 90 A.D.3d 729, 934 N.Y.2d 351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her cross motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff Jeremy K. Poverud sustained a “fracture” to his right patella as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Olic v Pappas, 47 AD3d 780, 780 [2008]; see generally Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Since the defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiffs, in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, raised a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Dillon, J.R, Angiolillo, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her cross motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff Jeremy K. Poverud sustained a “fracture” to his right patella as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Olic v Pappas, 47 AD3d 780, 780 [2008]; see generally Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Since the defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiffs, in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, raised a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Dillon, J.R, Angiolillo, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 729, 934 N.Y.2d 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poverud-v-kwartler-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack