Troche v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Troche v. New York City Transit Authority

16 A.D.3d 407, 790 N.Y.S.2d 413, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2299

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 407 (Troche v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Troche v. New York City Transit Authority, 16 A.D.3d 407, 790 N.Y.S.2d 413, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

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 (Jacobson, J.), dated November 12, 2003, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The reports of the defendants’ expert were not in admissible form (see Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]; Gleason v Huber, 188 AD2d 581, 582 [1992]). Moreover, while a defendant’s burden of submitting evidence to demonstrate that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury “may be satisfied by submitting [the] plaintiffs deposition testimony and the medical records of the plaintiff that were supplied by [the] plaintiffs counsel” (Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]), the excerpts of deposition testimony and the scant medical reports submitted by the defendants failed to demonstrate the lack of a serious injury sustained by any of the plaintiffs. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, 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 (Jacobson, J.), dated November 12, 2003, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The reports of the defendants’ expert were not in admissible form (see Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]; Gleason v Huber, 188 AD2d 581, 582 [1992]). Moreover, while a defendant’s burden of submitting evidence to demonstrate that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury “may be satisfied by submitting [the] plaintiffs deposition testimony and the medical records of the plaintiff that were supplied by [the] plaintiffs counsel” (Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]), the excerpts of deposition testimony and the scant medical reports submitted by the defendants failed to demonstrate the lack of a serious injury sustained by any of the plaintiffs. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 407, 790 N.Y.S.2d 413, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troche-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack