Rodriguez v. Zabala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Zabala

101 A.D.3d 980, 957 N.Y.2d 204

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 980 (Rodriguez v. Zabala) 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

Rodriguez v. Zabala, 101 A.D.3d 980, 957 N.Y.2d 204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Marisol Rodriguez did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of [981]*981the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff Marisol Rodriguez’s spine did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Moran v Kollar, 96 AD3d 811 [2012]; Ramkalawon v Correa, 95 AD3d 982 [2012]; Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for personal injuries.

The appeal from the second order dated October 5, 2011, must be dismissed as abandoned (see Sirma v Beach, 59 AD3d 611, 614 [2009]), as the plaintiffs do not seek reversal of that order in their brief.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Marisol Rodriguez did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of [981]*981the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff Marisol Rodriguez’s spine did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Moran v Kollar, 96 AD3d 811 [2012]; Ramkalawon v Correa, 95 AD3d 982 [2012]; Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for personal injuries.

The appeal from the second order dated October 5, 2011, must be dismissed as abandoned (see Sirma v Beach, 59 AD3d 611, 614 [2009]), as the plaintiffs do not seek reversal of that order in their brief.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 980, 957 N.Y.2d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-zabala-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack