Sanon v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanon v. Johnson

2017 NY Slip Op 1901, 148 A.D.3d 949, 49 N.Y.S.3d 519

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2017

Docket2016-03736

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1901 (Sanon v. Johnson) 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

Sanon v. Johnson, 2017 NY Slip Op 1901, 148 A.D.3d 949, 49 N.Y.S.3d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for *950 personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated April 14, 2016, as denied his 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint solely on the ground that the electronic signature of the defendant’s expert on his report was in impermissible form. We affirm, but on a different ground. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the issue of the signature inasmuch as we find that the defendant failed to meet his 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 defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiff’s claim, set forth in his bill of particulars, that he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977 [2010]; cf. Calucci v Baker, 299 AD2d 897 [2002]). Since the defendant failed to meet his 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 Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969).

Balkin, J.R, Miller, Duffy, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 *950 personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated April 14, 2016, as denied his 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint solely on the ground that the electronic signature of the defendant’s expert on his report was in impermissible form. We affirm, but on a different ground. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the issue of the signature inasmuch as we find that the defendant failed to meet his 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 defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiff’s claim, set forth in his bill of particulars, that he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977 [2010]; cf. Calucci v Baker, 299 AD2d 897 [2002]). Since the defendant failed to meet his 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 Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969).

Balkin, J.R, Miller, Duffy, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1901, 148 A.D.3d 949, 49 N.Y.S.3d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanon-v-johnson-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack