Walsh v. Cascone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh v. Cascone

101 A.D.3d 706, 954 N.Y.2d 488

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 706 (Walsh v. Cascone) 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

Walsh v. Cascone, 101 A.D.3d 706, 954 N.Y.2d 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant met her prima facie burden 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs injuries were not caused by the subject accident (cf. Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff Submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injury to his right shoulder was caused by the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; Sforza v Big Guy Leasing Corp., 51 AD3d 659, 661 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant met her prima facie burden 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs injuries were not caused by the subject accident (cf. Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff Submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injury to his right shoulder was caused by the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; Sforza v Big Guy Leasing Corp., 51 AD3d 659, 661 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 706, 954 N.Y.2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-cascone-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack