Sookoo v. Paredes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sookoo v. Paredes

39 A.D.3d 532, 831 N.Y.S.2d 730

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

DecidedApril 3, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 532 (Sookoo v. Paredes) 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

Sookoo v. Paredes, 39 A.D.3d 532, 831 N.Y.S.2d 730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J), dated July 17, 2006, 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject accident (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Baez v Rahamatali, 6 NY3d 868, 869 [2006]; Cervino v Gladysz-Steliga, 36 AD3d 744 [2007]). However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted sufficient medical and other evidence to raise triable issues of fact, thereby warranting the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see e.g. Gonzalez v Baik, 36 AD3d 854 [2007]; Cenatus v Rosen, 3 AD3d 546 [2004]). Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J), dated July 17, 2006, 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject accident (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Baez v Rahamatali, 6 NY3d 868, 869 [2006]; Cervino v Gladysz-Steliga, 36 AD3d 744 [2007]). However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted sufficient medical and other evidence to raise triable issues of fact, thereby warranting the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see e.g. Gonzalez v Baik, 36 AD3d 854 [2007]; Cenatus v Rosen, 3 AD3d 546 [2004]). Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 532, 831 N.Y.S.2d 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sookoo-v-paredes-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack