Bonventre v. Cicero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonventre v. Cicero

273 A.D.2d 429, 711 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7400

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

DecidedJune 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 429 (Bonventre v. Cicero) 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

Bonventre v. Cicero, 273 A.D.2d 429, 711 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 27, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment 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 costs.

The defendant established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff Joshua Bonventre (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). The affidavits submitted in opposition, including those of the plaintiff and his physician, failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that issue (see, Gaddy v Eyler, supra, at 955; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 27, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment 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 costs.

The defendant established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff Joshua Bonventre (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). The affidavits submitted in opposition, including those of the plaintiff and his physician, failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that issue (see, Gaddy v Eyler, supra, at 955; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 429, 711 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonventre-v-cicero-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack