Schroeder v. Benson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schroeder v. Benson

292 A.D.2d 438, 738 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2503

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 438 (Schroeder v. Benson) 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

Schroeder v. Benson, 292 A.D.2d 438, 738 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated May [439]*43921, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Lisa Schroeder did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Lisa Schroeder did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs failed to do so (see, Taylor v Jerusalem Air, 280 AD2d 466; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 84). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated May [439]*43921, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Lisa Schroeder did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Lisa Schroeder did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs failed to do so (see, Taylor v Jerusalem Air, 280 AD2d 466; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 84). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 438, 738 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schroeder-v-benson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack