Seongho Choi v. Guerrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seongho Choi v. Guerrero

82 A.D.3d 1080, 918 N.Y.2d 897

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1080 (Seongho Choi v. Guerrero) 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

Seongho Choi v. Guerrero, 82 A.D.3d 1080, 918 N.Y.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant met his prima facie burden of demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first cause of action by showing, through the affirmed reports of his medical experts, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Srebnick v Quinn, 75 AD3d 637 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. Rivera, J.R, Florio, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant met his prima facie burden of demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first cause of action by showing, through the affirmed reports of his medical experts, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Srebnick v Quinn, 75 AD3d 637 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. Rivera, J.R, Florio, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1080, 918 N.Y.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seongho-choi-v-guerrero-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack