From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shin v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2002
295 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-02554, 2002-05061

Submitted May 29, 2002.

June 18, 2002

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated February 20, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated March 27, 2001, which dismissed the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order is also deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[c]).

Theodore W. Robinson, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.

James P. Nunemaker, Uniondale, N.Y. (Kathleen E. Fioretti of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order is vacated, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Hussein v. Littman, 287 A.D.2d 543; Volozhinets v. DeHaven, 286 A.D.2d 437; Papadonikolakis v. First Fed. Leasing Group, 283 A.D.2d 470; Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188). The defendant did not demonstrate that this injury was not causally related to the subject accident, or that it was not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

ALTMAN, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to strike the appellant's appendix and brief on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 20, 2001, and a judgment of the same court dated March 27, 2001, on the ground that they contain or refer to material which is dehors the record.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that pages A208 to A544 of the appellant's appendix and any references thereto in the appellant's brief are stricken and have not been considered on these appeals, and the motion is otherwise denied.

ALTMAN, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shin v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2002
295 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Shin v. Torres

Case Details

Full title:GERARD SHIN, appellant v. JOSE TORRES, respondent

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

Date published: Jun 18, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 343

Citing Cases

Tricarico v. Vicale

The defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The evidence submitted in…

Sindoni v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority

The appellant, who was aware of the MRI examination, failed to demonstrate that the bulges were not causally…