Del v. Eberhart Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Del v. Eberhart Construction Co.

259 A.D.2d 589, 686 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2486

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated June 26, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Mariana Donoso Del did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The medical reports submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment were affirmed under penalty of perjury (see, CPLR 2106) and made out a prima [590] facie case that the plaintiff Mariana Donoso Del did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). However, the affirmation of Dr. Jose Acevedo which the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the motion raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated June 26, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Mariana Donoso Del did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The medical reports submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment were affirmed under penalty of perjury (see, CPLR 2106) and made out a prima [590] facie case that the plaintiff Mariana Donoso Del did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). However, the affirmation of Dr. Jose Acevedo which the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the motion raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Del v. Eberhart Construction Co., 259 A.D.2d 589, 686 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

259 A.D.2d 589 (Del v. Eberhart Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related