From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simonetti v. Tindel Waterproofing Rest

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 17, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted proof in admissible form which established that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to meet this burden ( see, Tabacco v. Kasten, 229 A.D.2d 526; Atamian v. Mintz, 216 A.D.2d 430; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266). Thus, the defendants were properly granted summary judgment ( see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230).

Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Simonetti v. Tindel Waterproofing Rest

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Simonetti v. Tindel Waterproofing Rest

Case Details

Full title:KIM SIMONETTI, Appellant, v. TINDEL WATERPROOFING RESTORATION INC. et al.…

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

Date published: May 17, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 654