Cracchiolo v. Rostkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cracchiolo v. Rostkowski

255 A.D.2d 545, 680 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12893

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 545 (Cracchiolo v. Rostkowski) 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

Cracchiolo v. Rostkowski, 255 A.D.2d 545, 680 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In consolidated actions to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (De Maro, J.), dated April 7, 1998, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motions are denied.

The defendants’ motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiffs injuries are not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Rosmarin v Lamontanaro, 238 AD2d 567; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In consolidated actions to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (De Maro, J.), dated April 7, 1998, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motions are denied.

The defendants’ motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiffs injuries are not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Rosmarin v Lamontanaro, 238 AD2d 567; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 545, 680 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cracchiolo-v-rostkowski-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack