Boettcher v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 November 2015 |
| Citation | 19 N.Y.S.3d 86,133 A.D.3d 625,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08141 |
| Parties | Andrew BOETTCHER, appellant, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., defendant, Armando Palmesi, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
133 A.D.3d 625
19 N.Y.S.3d 86
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08141
Andrew BOETTCHER, appellant,
v.
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., defendant,
Armando Palmesi, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 12, 2015.
Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (James W. Shuttleworth IIIof counsel), for appellant.
Cerussi & Spring, White Plains, N.Y. (Richard D. Bentzenand Christa D'Angelica of counsel), for respondents.
OpinionIn an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the
plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated December 5, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendants Armando Palmesi and Lily Transportation Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 Armando Palmesi and Lily Transportation Corp. (hereinafter together the defendants) met 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 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; Gaddy v. Eyler,79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the plaintiff's head was not caused by the accident (see generally Jilani v. Palmer,83 A.D.3d 786, 787, 920 N.Y.S.2d 424). The defendants also submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180–day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d)(see Richards v. Tyson,64 A.D.3d 760, 761, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amico v. Reed
...of the Insurance Law (see Dutka v Odierno, 145 A.D.3d 661, 43 N.Y.S.3d 409 [2d Dept 2016]; Boettchrr v Ryder Truck Renta,, Inc., 133 A.D.3d 625, 19 N.Y.S.3d 86 [2d Dept 2015] Krerimermnn v Stunis, 74 A.D.3d 753, 902 N.Y.S.2d 180 [2d Dept 2010]). A plaintiff is required to present nonconclus......
-
Hallett v. Town of Islip
...of the Insurance Law (see Dutka v Odierno, 145 A.D.3d 661,43 N.Y.S.3d 409 [2d Dept 2016]; Boettcher v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 133 A.D.3d 625, 19 N.Y.S.3d 86 [2d Dept 2015] Krerimerman v Stunts, 74 A.D.3d 753, 902 N.Y.S.2d 180 [2d Dept 2010]). A .plaintiff is required to present nohconclus......
- Rusin v. City of N.Y.