Won Hee Moon v. Vuolo

121 A.D.3d 974, 995 N.Y.S.2d 155
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 22, 2014
Docket2013-11241
StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 974 (Won Hee Moon v. Vuolo) 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
Won Hee Moon v. Vuolo, 121 A.D.3d 974, 995 N.Y.S.2d 155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

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 (Brown, J.), dated September 10, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff on behalf of Gloria Kim on the ground that Gloria Kim 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the infant Gloria Kim 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 submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to Kim’s right knee and right shoulder did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see *975 Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]). The defendant further submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that Kim did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]).

In opposition, no triable issue of fact was raised. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of Kim.

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, 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)
Staff v. Mair Yshua
59 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Che Hong Kim v. Kossoff
90 A.D.3d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.3d 974, 995 N.Y.S.2d 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/won-hee-moon-v-vuolo-nyappdiv-2014.