Sablo v. Westbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sablo v. Westbrook

115 A.D.3d 731, 981 N.Y.S.2d 605

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 731 (Sablo v. Westbrook) 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

Sablo v. Westbrook, 115 A.D.3d 731, 981 N.Y.S.2d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered November 8, 2013, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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 papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address [732]*732the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]). Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see id.).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Dillon, J.P, Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered November 8, 2013, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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 papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address [732]*732the plaintiffs claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]). Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see id.).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Dillon, J.P, Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 731, 981 N.Y.S.2d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sablo-v-westbrook-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack