Swaby v. Maldonado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swaby v. Maldonado

52 A.D.3d 692, 858 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedJune 17, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 692 (Swaby v. Maldonado) 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

Swaby v. Maldonado, 52 A.D.3d 692, 858 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated August 2, 2007, which denied her 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 defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see [693]*693Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Hussain v Wang, 18 AD3d 816 [2005]). Rivera, J.P, Lifson, Miller, Garni and Eng, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated August 2, 2007, which denied her 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 defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see [693]*693Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Hussain v Wang, 18 AD3d 816 [2005]). Rivera, J.P, Lifson, Miller, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 692, 858 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swaby-v-maldonado-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack