Smith v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Henry

282 A.D.2d 734, 724 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 734 (Smith v. Henry) 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

Smith v. Henry, 282 A.D.2d 734, 724 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 28, 2000, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff John E. Smith did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants submitted sufficient evidence to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff John E. Smith did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102. Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Dennis v Van Bergen-Henegouwen, 281 AD2d 383; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). The plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, 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, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 28, 2000, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff John E. Smith did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants submitted sufficient evidence to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff John E. Smith did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102. Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Dennis v Van Bergen-Henegouwen, 281 AD2d 383; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). The plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 734, 724 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-henry-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack