From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seminara v. Grossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1998
253 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

August 3, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision which, upon reargument, adheres to the original determination; as so modified the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellants.

The defendants submitted proof in admissible form which established that the plaintiff had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The burden thus shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). Upon our review of the record, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet this burden ( see, McHaffie v. Antieri, 190 A.D.2d 780; Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774; Philpotts v. Petrovic, 160 A.D.2d 856). Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Seminara v. Grossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1998
253 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Seminara v. Grossman

Case Details

Full title:ANN SEMINARA, Respondent, v. PHYLLIS GROSSMAN et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Aug 3, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
677 N.Y.S.2d 367

Citing Cases

Shlotzhauer v. United States

Id. § 5102(d). To prevail on a summary judgment motion, a defendant claiming that a plaintiff did not suffer…

Williams v. United States

Id. § 5102(d). As pertinent here, to prevail on a summary judgment motion, a defendant claiming that the…