White v. Dangelo Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 1016, 147 A.D.3d 882, 46 N.Y.S.3d 421
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 8, 2017
Docket2015-10943
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1016 (White v. Dangelo 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
White v. Dangelo Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 1016, 147 A.D.3d 882, 46 N.Y.S.3d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated September 10, 2015, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants met their 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 defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the plaintiff’s right knee was not caused by the subject accident (see Gouvea v Lesende, 127 AD3d 811 [2015]; Fontana v Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 AD3d 579 [2015]; see generally Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injury to her right knee was caused by the accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Leventhal, J.P., Austin, Cohen, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, 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)
Perl v. Meher
960 N.E.2d 424 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Fontana v. Aamaar & Maani Karan Transit Corp.
124 A.D.3d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Gouvea v. Lesende
127 A.D.3d 811 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Gaddy v. Eyler
591 N.E.2d 1176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Jilani v. Palmer
83 A.D.3d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 1016, 147 A.D.3d 882, 46 N.Y.S.3d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-dangelo-corp-nyappdiv-2017.