Felicciardi v. Lankap Cab Corp.

122 A.D.3d 668, 996 N.Y.S.2d 136
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 12, 2014
Docket2014-04538
StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.3d 668 (Felicciardi v. Lankap Cab Corp.) 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
Felicciardi v. Lankap Cab Corp., 122 A.D.3d 668, 996 N.Y.S.2d 136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the *669 defendants Lankap Cab Corp. and Galib Islam Sarkar appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated March 13, 2014, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff Maureen Felicciardi did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Maureen Felicciardi did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The papers submitted by the appellants failed to adequately address the plaintiffs’ claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that Maureen Felicciardi sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]).

Since the appellants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Mastro, J.E, Chambers, Cohen and Barros, JJ, concur. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30807GJ).]

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

Related

Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
774 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Gaddy v. Eyler
591 N.E.2d 1176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Che Hong Kim v. Kossoff
90 A.D.3d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 A.D.3d 668, 996 N.Y.S.2d 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felicciardi-v-lankap-cab-corp-nyappdiv-2014.