Sully v. Kings Luxury, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sully v. Kings Luxury, Inc.

38 A.D.3d 529, 833 N.Y.S.2d 111

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 529 (Sully v. Kings Luxury, Inc.) 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

Sully v. Kings Luxury, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 529, 833 N.Y.S.2d 111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated March 30, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their burden of establishing 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]). In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted a physician’s report which was unaffirmed and thus, insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Elder v Stokes, 35 AD3d 799 [2006]; Nkhereanye v Hillaire, 35 AD3d 419 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, 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, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated March 30, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their burden of establishing 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]). In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted a physician’s report which was unaffirmed and thus, insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Elder v Stokes, 35 AD3d 799 [2006]; Nkhereanye v Hillaire, 35 AD3d 419 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 529, 833 N.Y.S.2d 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sully-v-kings-luxury-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack