Yu v. C & A Seneca Construction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yu v. C & A Seneca Construction

40 A.D.3d 630, 833 N.Y.S.2d 407

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

DecidedMay 1, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 630 (Yu v. C & A Seneca Construction) 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

Yu v. C & A Seneca Construction, 40 A.D.3d 630, 833 N.Y.S.2d 407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated March 9, 2006, 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).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants’ evidence, consisting of the plaintiffs deposition testimony, the bill of particulars, the supplemental bill of particulars, and the affirmed medical reports of their examining neurologist, orthopedist, and radiologist, established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated March 9, 2006, 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).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants’ evidence, consisting of the plaintiffs deposition testimony, the bill of particulars, the supplemental bill of particulars, and the affirmed medical reports of their examining neurologist, orthopedist, and radiologist, established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 630, 833 N.Y.S.2d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yu-v-c-a-seneca-construction-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack