Barreto v. Longner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barreto v. Longner

253 A.D.2d 835, 678 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9838

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 835 (Barreto v. Longner) 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

Barreto v. Longner, 253 A.D.2d 835, 678 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Diego Laroche and Blanca Correa appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated February 17, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Florez v Diaz, 243 AD2d 607; Rosmarin v Lamontanaro, 238 AD2d 567; Puma v Player, 233 AD2d 308). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Florio and McGinity, 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 defendants Diego Laroche and Blanca Correa appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated February 17, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Florez v Diaz, 243 AD2d 607; Rosmarin v Lamontanaro, 238 AD2d 567; Puma v Player, 233 AD2d 308). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 835, 678 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barreto-v-longner-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack