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

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 446 (Cole v. Brandofino) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 446, 719 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-brandofino-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack