Buono v. Malagreca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buono v. Malagreca

253 A.D.2d 780, 677 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9578

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 780 (Buono v. Malagreca) 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

Buono v. Malagreca, 253 A.D.2d 780, 677 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 12, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; Risbrook v Coronamos Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 397; Livai v Amoroso, 239 AD2d 565; Wolfram v Vassilou, 239 AD2d 340; Steuer v DiDonna, 233 AD2d 494). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Goldstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 12, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; Risbrook v Coronamos Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 397; Livai v Amoroso, 239 AD2d 565; Wolfram v Vassilou, 239 AD2d 340; Steuer v DiDonna, 233 AD2d 494). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 780, 677 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buono-v-malagreca-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack