Curatolo v. Charjo Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curatolo v. Charjo Leasing Corp.

269 A.D.2d 556, 704 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2130

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 556 (Curatolo v. Charjo Leasing Corp.) 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

Curatolo v. Charjo Leasing Corp., 269 A.D.2d 556, 704 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Salvatore Lupo appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated April 15, 1999, as [557]*557denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by the plaintiff Santo J. Curatolo, on the ground that Santo J. Curatolo did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by the plaintiff Santo J. Curatolo. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 defendant Salvatore Lupo appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated April 15, 1999, as [557]*557denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by the plaintiff Santo J. Curatolo, on the ground that Santo J. Curatolo did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by the plaintiff Santo J. Curatolo. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 556, 704 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curatolo-v-charjo-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack