Robinson v. Cameron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Cameron

90 A.D.3d 635, 933 N.Y.2d 884

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 635 (Robinson v. Cameron) 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

Robinson v. Cameron, 90 A.D.3d 635, 933 N.Y.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the evidence submitted in support of the motion of the defendants Jacek Kochanowski and Page Taxi Corp. (hereinafter together the defendants) was sufficient to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff, who allegedly sustained injuries to the lumbar and cervical regions of his spine and both shoulders as a result of the accident, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch [636]*636of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

In light of our determination, the defendants’ remaining contention has been rendered academic. Skelos, J.R, Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the evidence submitted in support of the motion of the defendants Jacek Kochanowski and Page Taxi Corp. (hereinafter together the defendants) was sufficient to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff, who allegedly sustained injuries to the lumbar and cervical regions of his spine and both shoulders as a result of the accident, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch [636]*636of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

In light of our determination, the defendants’ remaining contention has been rendered academic. Skelos, J.R, Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 635, 933 N.Y.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-cameron-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack