Uveges v. Crill

137 A.D.3d 1262, 27 N.Y.S.3d 388
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 30, 2016·No. 2015-03288·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sciortino, J.), dated January 7, 2015, which, in effect, denied their 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) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established, prima facie, 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 Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact (see Perl v Meher, 18 *1263 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; Compass v GAE Transp., Inc., 79 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Uveges v. Crill, 137 A.D.3d 1262, 27 N.Y.S.3d 388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

137 A.D.3d 1262 (Uveges v. Crill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
774 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Gaddy v. Eyler
591 N.E.2d 1176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Compass v. GAE Transportation, Inc.
79 A.D.3d 1091 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)