From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vislocky v. Zupis Taxi, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 3, 2013
105 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-04-3

Amy VISLOCKY, appellant, v. ZUPIS TAXI, INC., et al., respondents.

Kahn Gordon Timko & Rodriques, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Nicholas I. Timko and Michael Zogala of counsel), for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondents.



Kahn Gordon Timko & Rodriques, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Nicholas I. Timko and Michael Zogala of counsel), for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated April 24, 2012, which granted the defendants' 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 met their prima facie 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 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197;Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the plaintiff's left knee did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Brackeche v. Gladiator Trucking Corp., 104 A.D.3d 633, 960 N.Y.S.2d 480 [2d Dept. 2013];Rojas v. United Logistic, Inc., 104 A.D.3d 667, 960 N.Y.S.2d 470 [2d Dept. 2013];Staff v. Yshua, 59 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180).

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' 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).


Summaries of

Vislocky v. Zupis Taxi, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 3, 2013
105 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Vislocky v. Zupis Taxi, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Amy VISLOCKY, appellant, v. ZUPIS TAXI, INC., et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 3, 2013

Citations

105 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
961 N.Y.S.2d 591
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2238

Citing Cases

Vislocky v. Zupis Taxi, Inc.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs. In light of our determination on a prior…

Marrow v. Torres

Once the movant has made this showing, the burden of proof shifts to the opponent to produce admissible…