D'Antonio v. Rothschild

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Antonio v. Rothschild

83 A.D.3d 509, 920 N.Y.S.2d 655

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

DecidedApril 14, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 509 (D'Antonio v. Rothschild) 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

D'Antonio v. Rothschild, 83 A.D.3d 509, 920 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered September 2, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Maria T. Rothschild’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her on the threshold issue of serious injury, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[510]*510The affirmed medical reports of defendant’s physicians stating, inter alia, that each examined plaintiffs and found no evidence of limited range of motion or other residual injury as a result of the accident on November 23, 2005, suffice to show prima facie that plaintiffs did not sustain a permanent or significant limitation as a result of the accident (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs’ evidence failed to sufficiently rebut defendant’s prima facie showing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered September 2, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Maria T. Rothschild’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her on the threshold issue of serious injury, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[510]*510The affirmed medical reports of defendant’s physicians stating, inter alia, that each examined plaintiffs and found no evidence of limited range of motion or other residual injury as a result of the accident on November 23, 2005, suffice to show prima facie that plaintiffs did not sustain a permanent or significant limitation as a result of the accident (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs’ evidence failed to sufficiently rebut defendant’s prima facie showing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 509, 920 N.Y.S.2d 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dantonio-v-rothschild-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack