Robinson v. Vitek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Vitek

48 A.D.3d 779, 851 N.Y.S.2d 358

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 779 (Robinson v. Vitek) 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. Vitek, 48 A.D.3d 779, 851 N.Y.S.2d 358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), entered January 22, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Louis Robinson did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Louis Robinson 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 plaintiffs’ opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Ritter and Carni, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), entered January 22, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Louis Robinson did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Louis Robinson 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 plaintiffs’ opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Ritter and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 779, 851 N.Y.S.2d 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-vitek-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack