Ramirez v. JIB II Express

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. JIB II Express

44 A.D.3d 739, 842 N.Y.S.2d 729

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

DecidedOctober 9, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 739 (Ramirez v. JIB II Express) 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

Ramirez v. JIB II Express, 44 A.D.3d 739, 842 N.Y.S.2d 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), entered January 26, 2007, which denied their 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering evidence showing [740]*740that 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]; see also Giraldo v Mandanici, 24 AD3d 419 [2005]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 49-50 [2005]). The Supreme Court erred in finding that the plaintiffs submissions raised a triable issue of fact. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Dillon and Angiolillo, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), entered January 26, 2007, which denied their 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering evidence showing [740]*740that 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]; see also Giraldo v Mandanici, 24 AD3d 419 [2005]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 49-50 [2005]). The Supreme Court erred in finding that the plaintiffs submissions raised a triable issue of fact. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 739, 842 N.Y.S.2d 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-jib-ii-express-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack