Slade v. Brancato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slade v. Brancato

280 A.D.2d 541, 720 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1880

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 541 (Slade v. Brancato) 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

Slade v. Brancato, 280 A.D.2d 541, 720 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated March 3, 2000, 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79; Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508; Noble v Ackerman, 252 AD2d 392, 394). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 (Clemente, J.), dated March 3, 2000, 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79; Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508; Noble v Ackerman, 252 AD2d 392, 394). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 541, 720 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slade-v-brancato-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack