From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Takila Oku v. MTA Bus Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 5, 2012
101 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-5

Takila OKU, appellant, v. MTA BUS COMPANY, respondent, et al., defendant.

Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Sullivan & Brill, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Courtney Haskins of counsel), for respondent.



Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Sullivan & Brill, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Courtney Haskins of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated September 14, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant MTA Bus Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that she 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 defendant MTA Bus Company (hereinafter the MTA) met its 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 MTA submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the subject accident ( see Jilani v. Palmer, 83 A.D.3d 786, 787, 920 N.Y.S.2d 424), and that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180–day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Richards v. Tyson, 64 A.D.3d 760, 761, 883 N.Y.S.2d 575).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the MTA's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it 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.


Summaries of

Takila Oku v. MTA Bus Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 5, 2012
101 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Takila Oku v. MTA Bus Co.

Case Details

Full title:Takila OKU, appellant, v. MTA BUS COMPANY, respondent, et al., defendant.

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

Date published: Dec 5, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
955 N.Y.S.2d 370
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8290

Citing Cases

Posanti v. Oliveira

In addition, the records revealed that plaintiff had been in a prior motor vehicle accident in 2006 and…