Yunayeva v. Digiugno Steel, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yunayeva v. Digiugno Steel, Inc.

113 A.D.3d 607, 977 N.Y.2d 911

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 607 (Yunayeva v. Digiugno Steel, Inc.) 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

Yunayeva v. Digiugno Steel, Inc., 113 A.D.3d 607, 977 N.Y.2d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating 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, 350 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury to her right knee (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating 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, 350 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury to her right knee (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 607, 977 N.Y.2d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yunayeva-v-digiugno-steel-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack