From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kiernan v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 18, 2009
65 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2009-01893.

August 18, 2009.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Robert Kiernan appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated January 8, 2009, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Everett J. Petersson, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Murphy Lambiase, Goshen, N.Y. (Laura Freeman of counsel), for respondent DaimlerChrysler Corp.

O'Connor, O'Connor, Hintz Deveney, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), for respondent Kevin Bourne.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision that the denial of the motion is with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the plaintiff Robert Kiernan for summary judgment. When Kiernan made his motion, discovery, including the exchange of X-ray materials that were the basis of this plaintiffs claims, was still outstanding ( See CPLR 3212 [f]; Destin v New York City Tr. Auth., 303 AD2d 713; Morris v Hochman, 296 AD2d 481). However, the motion should have been denied with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.


Summaries of

Kiernan v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 18, 2009
65 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Kiernan v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT KIERNAN, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. DAIMLER-CHRYSLER CORP. et…

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

Date published: Aug 18, 2009

Citations

65 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 6237
883 N.Y.S.2d 729

Citing Cases

Jimenez v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Under these circumstances, NYCM is not collaterally estopped from litigating the merits of the underlying…

Brito v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Although summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff should have been denied in light of the existence of the…