From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Knoll v. Seafood Express

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 15, 2005
5 N.Y.3d 817 (N.Y. 2005)

Opinion

186.

Decided September 15, 2005.

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered April 21, 2005. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), which had granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries stained in a motor vehicle accident. In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant contended, among other things, that plaintiff failed to establish a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Knoll v. Seafood Express, 17 AD3d 233, affirmed.

Michael N. David, New York City, for appellant.

Geoghan Cohen Bongiorno, L.L.C., New York City ( Joseph R. Bongiorno of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In light of the fact that plaintiff's benign brain stem angioma condition preexisted the accident, plaintiff failed to submit medical proof sufficient to rebut defendants' submissions and to show that he suffered a serious injury that is causally related to the accident ( see Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 580).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Knoll v. Seafood Express

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 15, 2005
5 N.Y.3d 817 (N.Y. 2005)
Case details for

Knoll v. Seafood Express

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE KNOLL, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. SEAFOOD EXPRESS et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 15, 2005

Citations

5 N.Y.3d 817 (N.Y. 2005)
803 N.Y.S.2d 25
836 N.E.2d 1148

Citing Cases

YI v. CANELA

Only if defendant satisfies this standard, does the burden shift to plaintiff to rebut defendant's prima…

Trinidad v. Anlag

Therefore, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact ( seeGaddy v Eyler, supra).…