Amodie v. Fey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amodie v. Fey

304 A.D.2d 596, 757 N.Y.S.2d 469

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 596 (Amodie v. Fey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amodie v. Fey, 304 A.D.2d 596, 757 N.Y.S.2d 469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered July 5, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, McGinity, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered July 5, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, McGinity, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 596, 757 N.Y.S.2d 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amodie-v-fey-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack