Smith v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

251 A.D.2d 397, 675 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated September 5, 1997, which granted the defendant’s 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 denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff met her [398]*398burden by submitting sufficient evidence raising a triable issue of fact on the issue of whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Puma v Player, 233 AD2d 308; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Parker v Defontaine-Stratton, 231 AD2d 412; Rut v Grigonis, 214 AD2d 721). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated September 5, 1997, which granted the defendant’s 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 denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff met her [398]*398burden by submitting sufficient evidence raising a triable issue of fact on the issue of whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Puma v Player, 233 AD2d 308; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Parker v Defontaine-Stratton, 231 AD2d 412; Rut v Grigonis, 214 AD2d 721). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Smith v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, 251 A.D.2d 397, 675 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 397 (Smith v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related