Rose v. City of New Rochelle

57 A.D.3d 506, 867 N.Y.2d 696
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The appellants’ proof failed to eliminate all issues of fact as to whether, as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and thus failed to make a prima facie showing that the appellants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Tchjevskaia v [507] Chase, 15 AD3d 389 [2005]). Santucci, J.E, Covello, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Rose v. City of New Rochelle, 57 A.D.3d 506, 867 N.Y.2d 696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

57 A.D.3d 506 (Rose v. City of New Rochelle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thaler v. Felsberg
91 A.D.3d 850 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)