Taylor v. Yan Young Zhao

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Yan Young Zhao

279 A.D.2d 518, 718 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 388

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 16, 2001·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 21, 2000, which granted the defendants’ 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 met their initial burden on the motion by submitting the affirmations of an orthopedist and neurologist who examined the plaintiff and concluded that no objective medical findings supported his claim that he had sustained a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 83-84). The plaintiff’s opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Foley v Karvelis, 276 AD2d 1015; Nisnewitz v Renna, 273 AD2d 210; Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 21, 2000, which granted the defendants’ 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 met their initial burden on the motion by submitting the affirmations of an orthopedist and neurologist who examined the plaintiff and concluded that no objective medical findings supported his claim that he had sustained a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 83-84). The plaintiff’s opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Foley v Karvelis, 276 AD2d 1015; Nisnewitz v Renna, 273 AD2d 210; Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Taylor v. Yan Young Zhao, 279 A.D.2d 518, 718 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

279 A.D.2d 518 (Taylor v. Yan Young Zhao) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related