Dominique v. Palattella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dominique v. Palattella

282 A.D.2d 424, 722 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 424 (Dominique v. Palattella) 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

Dominique v. Palattella, 282 A.D.2d 424, 722 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[425]*425—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated January 6, 2000, which denied his motion, in effect, for partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs Richard G. Dominique and Nora Hartmann on the ground that neither of them sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted by Richard G. Dominique and Nora Hartmann, and the action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Marla Dominique is severed.

Although the request for relief on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was to dismiss the entire complaint, his motion papers addressed only the causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs Richard G. Dominique and Nora Hartmann, which were to recover damages for personal injuries. We make no determination as to the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff Marla Dominique which was to recover for property damage (see, Jimenez v Kambli, 272 AD2d 581).

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the defendant established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiffs’ injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Goldin v Lee, 275 AD2d 341; Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569). Accordingly, it was incumbent on the injured plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The injured plaintiffs failed to do so (see, Young v Ryan, 265 AD2d 547; Frank v Jones, 259 AD2d 517; Gill v O.N.S. Trucking, 239 AD2d 463; Verrelli v Tronolone, 230 AD2d 789). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[425]*425—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated January 6, 2000, which denied his motion, in effect, for partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs Richard G. Dominique and Nora Hartmann on the ground that neither of them sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted by Richard G. Dominique and Nora Hartmann, and the action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Marla Dominique is severed.

Although the request for relief on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was to dismiss the entire complaint, his motion papers addressed only the causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs Richard G. Dominique and Nora Hartmann, which were to recover damages for personal injuries. We make no determination as to the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff Marla Dominique which was to recover for property damage (see, Jimenez v Kambli, 272 AD2d 581).

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the defendant established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiffs’ injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Goldin v Lee, 275 AD2d 341; Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569). Accordingly, it was incumbent on the injured plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The injured plaintiffs failed to do so (see, Young v Ryan, 265 AD2d 547; Frank v Jones, 259 AD2d 517; Gill v O.N.S. Trucking, 239 AD2d 463; Verrelli v Tronolone, 230 AD2d 789). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 424, 722 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominique-v-palattella-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack