Cole v. Brandofino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cole v. Brandofino

280 A.D.2d 446, 719 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1183

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of [447]*447the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated April 4, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established a prima facie case that the plaintiff’s injuries were not serious through the affirmed report of a doctor who examined the plaintiff and concluded that his injuries were merely cervical and lumbar sprains which had been resolved (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, the motion should have been granted. Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 defendants appeal from an order of [447]*447the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated April 4, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established a prima facie case that the plaintiff’s injuries were not serious through the affirmed report of a doctor who examined the plaintiff and concluded that his injuries were merely cervical and lumbar sprains which had been resolved (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, the motion should have been granted. Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cole v. Brandofino, 280 A.D.2d 446, 719 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 446 (Cole v. Brandofino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related