Davis v. Giria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Giria

40 A.D.3d 272, 833 N.Y.S.2d 392

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

DecidedMay 3, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 272 (Davis v. Giria) 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

Davis v. Giria, 40 A.D.3d 272, 833 N.Y.S.2d 392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2006, which granted defendant Giria’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against all defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if an issue of fact were raised as to whether plaintiffs alleged injuries are “serious” as that term is defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was correct in light of the persuasive and essentially uncontradicted evidence adduced by defendants showing that the injuries at issue are attributable, not to the alleged automobile accident, but to a preexisting degenerative condition (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 580 [2005]; Diaz v Añasco, 38 AD3d 295 [2007]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2006, which granted defendant Giria’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against all defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if an issue of fact were raised as to whether plaintiffs alleged injuries are “serious” as that term is defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was correct in light of the persuasive and essentially uncontradicted evidence adduced by defendants showing that the injuries at issue are attributable, not to the alleged automobile accident, but to a preexisting degenerative condition (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 580 [2005]; Diaz v Añasco, 38 AD3d 295 [2007]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 272, 833 N.Y.S.2d 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-giria-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack