From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barroso v. Kristensen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 2007
46 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-10933.

December 18, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated September 7, 2006, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Heriberto A. Cabrera, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joseph M. Dash of counsel), for appellant.

Epstein, Rayhill Frankini, Woodbury, N.Y. (Mona C. Haas of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden by establishing 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; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Barroso v. Kristensen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 2007
46 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Barroso v. Kristensen

Case Details

Full title:ANGEL BARROSO, Appellant, v. GILMA S. KRISTENSEN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 18, 2007

Citations

46 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 10087
847 N.Y.S.2d 482