Salina v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salina v. Joseph

26 A.D.3d 487, 809 N.Y.S.2d 464

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 487 (Salina v. Joseph) 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

Salina v. Joseph, 26 A.D.3d 487, 809 N.Y.S.2d 464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated March 24, 2005, 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants did not establish their prima facie burden on their motion (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511, 512 [2004]). Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, and we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition to the motion (see Hanna v Alverado, 16 AD3d 624 [2005]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, 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, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated March 24, 2005, 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants did not establish their prima facie burden on their motion (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511, 512 [2004]). Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, and we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition to the motion (see Hanna v Alverado, 16 AD3d 624 [2005]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 487, 809 N.Y.S.2d 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salina-v-joseph-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack