Wunderlich v. Bhuiyan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wunderlich v. Bhuiyan

99 A.D.3d 795, 951 N.Y.2d 885

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 795 (Wunderlich v. Bhuiyan) 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

Wunderlich v. Bhuiyan, 99 A.D.3d 795, 951 N.Y.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants met their 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 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 injuries to the plaintiffs right knee did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), including evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Bamundo v Fiero, 88 AD3d 831 [2011]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Il Chung Lim v Chrabaszcz, 95 AD3d 950, 951 [2012]; McLoud v Reyes, 82 AD3d 848, 849 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment. Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ, concur.

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

The defendants met their 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 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 injuries to the plaintiffs right knee did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), including evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Bamundo v Fiero, 88 AD3d 831 [2011]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Il Chung Lim v Chrabaszcz, 95 AD3d 950, 951 [2012]; McLoud v Reyes, 82 AD3d 848, 849 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment. Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 795, 951 N.Y.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wunderlich-v-bhuiyan-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack