Sanderson v. Lonero Transit, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanderson v. Lonero Transit, Inc.

51 A.D.3d 764, 857 N.Y.S.2d 911

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

DecidedMay 13, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.3d 764 (Sanderson v. Lonero Transit, Inc.) 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

Sanderson v. Lonero Transit, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 764, 857 N.Y.S.2d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from , an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 15, 2007, 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 defendants met 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 [765]*765Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Lifson and Leventhal, 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, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 15, 2007, 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 defendants met 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 [765]*765Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Lifson and Leventhal, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 764, 857 N.Y.S.2d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanderson-v-lonero-transit-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack