GONYOU, CRYSTAL M. v. MCLAUGHLIN, ROBERTA D.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wiechec v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Rook v. Wood (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Rook v. Dibble (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Totaro v. Malinowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Totaro v. Malinowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Zazulak v. Sarna (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Banas v. Waikiki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Sywak v. Grande (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Stroh v. Kromer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Henderson v. Cuyler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Mussari v. Murray (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Mutombo v. Certified Document Destruction & Recycling, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Cohen v. Broten (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Lamar v. Anastasi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Woodward v. Ciamaricone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Snyder v. Daw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- CRACCHIOLA, STEVEN J. v. SAUSNER, BRIAN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Russell v. Pulga-Nappi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Crystal M. Gonyou (plaintiff) while she was operating a vehicle that was involved in a multivehicle accident. Supreme Court erred in granting the motions of Justin M. Sanmartín and Robert F. Novak (defendants) seeking sum *1627 mary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. “On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that [the] plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident” (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, defendants failed to meet that burden inasmuch as, by their own submissions in support of their motions, they raised triable issues of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the statute (see Phoung Le Nguyen v Wilson, 8 AD3d 1036 [2004]). Because defendants failed to meet their initial burden, we do not consider the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see Swartz v Kalson, 78 AD3d 1553, 1554 [2010]). We note, however, that the court in its order determined that plaintiffs’ cross motion was moot in light of the dismissal of the complaint against defendants. Because we are reinstating the complaint against defendants, we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine plaintiffs’ cross motion. Present — Scudder, RJ., Fahey, Garni, Green and Gorski, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.