Robinson v Lawrence

Annotate this Case
Robinson v Lawrence 2012 NY Slip Op 07095 Decided on October 24, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2012-03644
(Index No. 10208/09)

[*1]Jessica Robinson, respondent,

v

Ticara Lawrence, et al., appellants.




DeSena & Sweeney, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Shawn P.
O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for appellants.
Falk & Klebanoff, P.C., West Hempstead, N.Y. (Victor A. Carr
and Jeffrey P. Falk of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered March 19, 2012, which denied their 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) as a result of the subject accident.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants failed to adequately address the plaintiff's claim, set forth in her bill of particulars, that as a result of the subject accident, she sustained certain injuries to her right knee (see Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d 979, 980; Joseph v Hampton, 48 AD3d 638, 638-639).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d at 980; Joseph v Hampton, 48 AD3d at 639).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., BALKIN, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino [*2]

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.