Cullora v. Paul Michael Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cullora v. Paul Michael Management, Inc.

253 A.D.2d 512, 676 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9119

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

DecidedAugust 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 512 (Cullora v. Paul Michael Management, 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

Cullora v. Paul Michael Management, Inc., 253 A.D.2d 512, 676 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated December 15, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained 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 submitted proof in admissible form which established that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The burden thus shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). We find that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden (see, Valencia v Siu-Ke Lui, 239 AD2d 339; Gill v O.N.S. Trucking, 239 AD2d 463; Feintuch v Grella, 209 AD2d 377; see also, Attivissimo v Kugler, 226 AD2d 658). Thus, summary judgment should have been granted to the defendants (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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 the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated December 15, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained 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 submitted proof in admissible form which established that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The burden thus shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). We find that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden (see, Valencia v Siu-Ke Lui, 239 AD2d 339; Gill v O.N.S. Trucking, 239 AD2d 463; Feintuch v Grella, 209 AD2d 377; see also, Attivissimo v Kugler, 226 AD2d 658). Thus, summary judgment should have been granted to the defendants (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 512, 676 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cullora-v-paul-michael-management-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack