General
Christine Uveges, Respondent, v. Richard Crill et al., Appellants
137 A.D.3d 126227 N.Y.S.3d 388·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2016·NY
Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
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
Christine Uveges, Respondent, v Richard Crill et al., Appellants.
[27 NYS3d 388]
[MAJORITY]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sciortino, J.), dated January 7, 2015, which, in effect, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established, prima facie, 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]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; Compass v GAE Transp., Inc., 79 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.