Balzano v. Goode

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Balzano v. Goode

250 A.D.2d 793, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1012

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 793 (Balzano v. Goode) 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

Balzano v. Goode, 250 A.D.2d 793, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant James Felton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated June 13, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in both actions insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the injured plaintiff 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 there is an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; see also, Puma v [794]*794Player, 233 AD2d 308; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant James Felton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated June 13, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in both actions insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the injured plaintiff 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 there is an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; see also, Puma v [794]*794Player, 233 AD2d 308; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 793, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balzano-v-goode-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack