From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grant v. Heli Trucker, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

01-05771

Submitted February 20, 2002

May 28, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 13, 2001, as 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).

Jaffe Nohavicka, New York, N.Y. (Mayu Miyashita of counsel), for appellants.

Newman Okun, New York, N.Y. (Eric M. Babat of counsel), for respondent.

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. The defendants established a prima facie case that the plaintiff's injuries were not serious through the affirmed reports of an orthopedist and a neurologist, both of whom examined her and found no evidence of disability (see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The only competent medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition, a physician's affirmation, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79).

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Grant v. Heli Trucker, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Grant v. Heli Trucker, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TAMIKO GRANT, RESPONDENT, v. HELI TRUCKER, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 28, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 874

Citing Cases

Willis v. New York City Transit Auth

Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants' motion ( see Taccetta v. Scotto,…

Vucic v. Rodriguez

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The appellant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff…