Soto v. Enterprise Rent A Car

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soto v. Enterprise Rent A Car

279 A.D.2d 567, 719 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 608

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 567 (Soto v. Enterprise Rent A Car) 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

Soto v. Enterprise Rent A Car, 279 A.D.2d 567, 719 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County .(Pincus, J.), dated February 14, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the infant plaintiff, Angel Soto, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The affirmed report prepared by an orthopedist, Dr. William J. Kulak, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, established a prima facie case that the infant plaintiff, Angel Soto, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). We note that the Supreme Court providently [568]*568exercised its discretion in refusing to consider a physician’s affidavit which was submitted by the plaintiffs after the return date of the motion (see, Risucci v Zeal Mgt. Corp., 258 AD2d 512). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, 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 and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County .(Pincus, J.), dated February 14, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the infant plaintiff, Angel Soto, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The affirmed report prepared by an orthopedist, Dr. William J. Kulak, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, established a prima facie case that the infant plaintiff, Angel Soto, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). We note that the Supreme Court providently [568]*568exercised its discretion in refusing to consider a physician’s affidavit which was submitted by the plaintiffs after the return date of the motion (see, Risucci v Zeal Mgt. Corp., 258 AD2d 512). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 567, 719 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-enterprise-rent-a-car-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack