Bonilla v. Fine Homes Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonilla v. Fine Homes Construction Co.

243 A.D.2d 523, 663 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9810

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 523 (Bonilla v. Fine Homes Construction Co.) 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

Bonilla v. Fine Homes Construction Co., 243 A.D.2d 523, 663 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens [524]*524County (Price, J.), dated October 4, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiffs met their burden in opposition to the defendants’ motion by submitting sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Pareti v Giglietta, 221 AD2d 607; Rut v Grigonis, 214 AD2d 721; Meireles v Lakeland Cent. School Dist., 208 AD2d 508; see also, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens [524]*524County (Price, J.), dated October 4, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiffs met their burden in opposition to the defendants’ motion by submitting sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Pareti v Giglietta, 221 AD2d 607; Rut v Grigonis, 214 AD2d 721; Meireles v Lakeland Cent. School Dist., 208 AD2d 508; see also, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 523, 663 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonilla-v-fine-homes-construction-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack