Wade v. Allied Building Products Corp.

41 A.D.3d 466, 837 N.Y.S.2d 302

This text of 41 A.D.3d 466 (Wade v. Allied Building Products Corp.) 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
Wade v. Allied Building Products Corp., 41 A.D.3d 466, 837 N.Y.S.2d 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered November 3, 2006, as granted the motion of the defendants Allied Building Products Corp. and Kenneth Webb, and the separate motion of the defendant Francesco Pugliese, 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 reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the plaintiff by the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint are denied.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendants, in their separate motions for summary judgment, failed to meet their respective prima facie burdens of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain 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, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ examining neurologist found limitations when he examined the plaintiff (see Iles v Jonat, 35 AD3d 537 [2006]). Since the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether the plaintiffs papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Crane, J.P., Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

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)
Iles v. Jonat
35 A.D.3d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp.
283 A.D.2d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 A.D.3d 466, 837 N.Y.S.2d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-allied-building-products-corp-nyappdiv-2007.