Brady v. Correctional Transportation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brady v. Correctional Transportation, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 171, 732 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 171 (Brady v. Correctional Transportation, 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

Brady v. Correctional Transportation, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 171, 732 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated November 1, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Collette Deiderio, a/k/a Collette Desiderio, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the respondent’s prima facie showing that neither of them sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the [172]*172complaint insofar as asserted against her (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated November 1, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Collette Deiderio, a/k/a Collette Desiderio, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the respondent’s prima facie showing that neither of them sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the [172]*172complaint insofar as asserted against her (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 171, 732 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-correctional-transportation-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack