Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Cosovic v. Term Leasing, Inc.
234 A.D.2d 79
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1996-12-10
- Topic
- international-arbitration
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about July 11, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion to renew and reargue a prior order, same court and Justice, dismissing the complaint for lack of evidence of a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), *80and thereupon reinstated the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The IAS Court correctly apprehended that on defendants’ prior motion for summary judgment, it improperly imposed on plaintiff a burden of adducing proof of a serious injury. As the parties moving for summary judgment, it was defendants’ burden to present evidence, in competent form, sufficient to establish that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury; having failed to meet that burden, plaintiff was not required to come forward with proof that he did sustain serious injury (Rodriguez v Goldstein, 182 AD2d 396). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Cosovic v. Term Leasing, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about July 11, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion to renew and reargue a prior order, same court and Justice, dismissing the complaint for lack of evidence of a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d),
The IAS Court correctly apprehended that on defendants’ prior motion for summary judgment, it improperly imposed on plaintiff a burden of adducing proof of a serious injury. As the parties moving for summary judgment, it was defendants’ burden to present evidence, in competent form, sufficient to establish that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury; having failed to meet that burden, plaintiff was not required to come forward with proof that he did sustain serious injury (Rodriguez v Goldstein, 182 AD2d 396). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.