Robinson v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Lawrence

99 A.D.3d 980, 952 N.Y.2d 468

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.3d 980 (Robinson v. Lawrence) 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. Lawrence, 99 A.D.3d 980, 952 N.Y.2d 468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in her bill of particulars, that as a result of the subject accident, she sustained certain injuries to her right knee (see Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d 979, 980 [2009]; Joseph v Hampton, 48 AD3d 638, 638-639 [2008]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d at 980; Joseph v Hampton, 48 AD3d at 639). Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

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, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, set forth in her bill of particulars, that as a result of the subject accident, she sustained certain injuries to her right knee (see Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d 979, 980 [2009]; Joseph v Hampton, 48 AD3d 638, 638-639 [2008]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d at 980; Joseph v Hampton, 48 AD3d at 639). Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 980, 952 N.Y.2d 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack