Argudo v. Scandariato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Argudo v. Scandariato

306 A.D.2d 301, 760 N.Y.S.2d 669

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

DecidedJune 9, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 301 (Argudo v. Scandariato) 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

Argudo v. Scandariato, 306 A.D.2d 301, 760 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from [302]*302an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated January 2, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Lisandra Argudo did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s medical evidence failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff Lisandra Argudo did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188 [2000]; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757 [1995]). Thus, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Chaplin v Taylor, supra). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from [302]*302an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated January 2, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Lisandra Argudo did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s medical evidence failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff Lisandra Argudo did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188 [2000]; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757 [1995]). Thus, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Chaplin v Taylor, supra). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 301, 760 N.Y.S.2d 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/argudo-v-scandariato-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack