Anderson v. FoleyAnderson v. Foley
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.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL BETSY BARROS VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
2015-07534
2015-10565
(Index No. 24268/12)
Michael Anderson, Jr., et al., appellants, v Robert Foley, respondent.
Samuels & Associates, P.C., Rosedale, NY (Violet E. Samuels of counsel), for appellants.
Martyn Toher and Martyn (Harris, King, Fodera & Correia, New York, NY [Eitan Z. Magendzo], of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Arthur M. Schack, J.), dated June 22, 2015, and September 8, 2015, respectively. The order dated June 22, 2015, granted the defendant‘s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order dated September 8, 2015, insofar as appealed from, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the determination in the order dated June 22, 2015, granting the defendant‘s
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated June 22, 2015, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by so much of the order dated September 8, 2015, as was made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated September 8, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 7, 2011, on the Southern State Parkway. In November 2012, the plaintiffs, Michael Anderson, Jr. (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), and Colette Anderson, commenced this action against the defendant, seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident.
The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of
The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its prior determination granting the defendant‘s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court