Bertoglio v. Fernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bertoglio v. Fernandez

65 A.D.3d 1065, 885 N.Y.S.2d 223

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1065 (Bertoglio v. Fernandez) 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

Bertoglio v. Fernandez, 65 A.D.3d 1065, 885 N.Y.S.2d 223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages [1066]*1066for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated January 26, 2009, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages [1066]*1066for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated January 26, 2009, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 1065, 885 N.Y.S.2d 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bertoglio-v-fernandez-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack