Bartalini v. Transport Real Grondin, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bartalini v. Transport Real Grondin, Inc.

7 A.D.3d 476, 775 N.Y.S.2d 875

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

DecidedMay 3, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 476 (Bartalini v. Transport Real Grondin, Inc.) 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

Bartalini v. Transport Real Grondin, Inc., 7 A.D.3d 476, 775 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered June 20, 2003, which granted the defendants’ 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.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The plaintiffs submissions in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the defendants were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered June 20, 2003, which granted the defendants’ 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.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The plaintiffs submissions in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the defendants were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 476, 775 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartalini-v-transport-real-grondin-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack