Curro v. Fernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curro v. Fernandez

232 A.D.2d 520, 648 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10452

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 520 (Curro v. Fernandez) 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

Curro v. Fernandez, 232 A.D.2d 520, 648 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated November 30, 1995, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment contending that there was no "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). They established, prima facie, that the injuries of the plaintiff Antonio G. Curro were not serious (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Antonio G. Curro had sustained a "serious injury”. Accordingly, the court properly awarded summary judgment to the [521]*521defendants (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated November 30, 1995, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment contending that there was no "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). They established, prima facie, that the injuries of the plaintiff Antonio G. Curro were not serious (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Antonio G. Curro had sustained a "serious injury”. Accordingly, the court properly awarded summary judgment to the [521]*521defendants (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 520, 648 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curro-v-fernandez-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack