Wright v. Peralta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Peralta

26 A.D.3d 489, 809 N.Y.S.2d 465

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 489 (Wright v. Peralta) 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

Wright v. Peralta, 26 A.D.3d 489, 809 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated December 5, 2003, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[490]*490Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting objective evidence that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject accident. The proof included, inter alia, an affirmed report by the defendant’s orthopedist that, as compared to the relevant normal ranges of motion, as set forth in the report, the plaintiff suffered no limitation (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350-353 [2002]; Villalta v Schechter, 273 AD2d 299, 300 [2000]; cf. Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to present any medical evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury (see Paul v Trerotola, 11 AD3d 441 [2004]; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365, 366 [1999]). Accordingly, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated December 5, 2003, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[490]*490Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting objective evidence that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject accident. The proof included, inter alia, an affirmed report by the defendant’s orthopedist that, as compared to the relevant normal ranges of motion, as set forth in the report, the plaintiff suffered no limitation (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350-353 [2002]; Villalta v Schechter, 273 AD2d 299, 300 [2000]; cf. Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to present any medical evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury (see Paul v Trerotola, 11 AD3d 441 [2004]; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365, 366 [1999]). Accordingly, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 489, 809 N.Y.S.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-peralta-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack