Smolyar v. Krongauz

2 A.D.3d 518, 767 N.Y.S.2d 873
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 8, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 518 (Smolyar v. Krongauz) 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
Smolyar v. Krongauz, 2 A.D.3d 518, 767 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 12, 2002, as upon, in effect, granting his motion for leave to reargue, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated March 7, 2001, granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Josef Rottenstein which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action insofar as asserted against him, 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 insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the order dated March 7, 2001, is vacated, upon reargument, the branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendant Josef Rottenstein is denied, and the first cause of action is reinstated against the defendant Josef Rottenstein.

To be entitled to summary judgment, the defendant Josef Rottenstein was required to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Rottenstein failed to meet that burden. Indeed, his medical experts failed entirely to address the plaintiffs allegation that he sustained compression fractures of the C5, C6, and C7 vertebral bodies (see Meyer v Gallardo, 260 AD2d 556 [1999]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Friscia v. Mak Auto, Inc.
59 A.D.3d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
I Mei Chou v. Welsh
15 A.D.3d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Lesane v. Tejada
15 A.D.3d 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 518, 767 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smolyar-v-krongauz-nyappdiv-2003.