Doherty v. Roncone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doherty v. Roncone

202 A.D.2d 387, 609 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1970

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 387 (Doherty v. Roncone) 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

Doherty v. Roncone, 202 A.D.2d 387, 609 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [388]*388for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered April 17, 1992, which granted the motion by the defendants Robert Buono and Richard Buono for summary judgment and the cross motion by the defendants Joseph Roncone and Mary Greenburg for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents Robert Buono and Richard Buono.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the court properly granted the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages [388]*388for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered April 17, 1992, which granted the motion by the defendants Robert Buono and Richard Buono for summary judgment and the cross motion by the defendants Joseph Roncone and Mary Greenburg for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents Robert Buono and Richard Buono.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the court properly granted the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 387, 609 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doherty-v-roncone-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack