Tagger v. Olympic Van Line, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tagger v. Olympic Van Line, Inc.

38 A.D.3d 646, 830 N.Y.S.2d 673

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 646 (Tagger v. Olympic Van Line, 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

Tagger v. Olympic Van Line, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 646, 830 N.Y.S.2d 673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 8, 2006, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the eighth “affirmative defense” asserting that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the eighth “affirmative defense.” The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the subject accident caused her to sustain a fracture, and thus, a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Baez v Rahamatali, 6 NY3d 868, 869 [2006]; Cervino v Gladysz-Steliga, 36 AD3d 744 [2007]; cf. Benedetto v Carrera Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 874, 876 [2006]). Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 8, 2006, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the eighth “affirmative defense” asserting that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the eighth “affirmative defense.” The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the subject accident caused her to sustain a fracture, and thus, a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Baez v Rahamatali, 6 NY3d 868, 869 [2006]; Cervino v Gladysz-Steliga, 36 AD3d 744 [2007]; cf. Benedetto v Carrera Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 874, 876 [2006]). Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 646, 830 N.Y.S.2d 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tagger-v-olympic-van-line-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack