General
Harry Jenson, Respondent, v. Catherine H. Brooke et al., Appellants
97 A.D.3d 539947 N.Y.S.2d 328·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2012·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Harry Jenson, Respondent, v Catherine H. Brooke et al., Appellants.
[947 NYS2d 328]
[MAJORITY]
The defendants met their prima facie of burden 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 evidence establishing, prima facie, that none of the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiffs spine constituted a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ, concur.