Florio v. Pape

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Florio v. Pape

20 A.D.3d 549, 798 N.Y.S.2d 693

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

DecidedJuly 25, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.3d 549 (Florio v. Pape) 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

Florio v. Pape, 20 A.D.3d 549, 798 N.Y.S.2d 693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated December 8, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). Therefore, we need not consider the alleged [550]*550insufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Mendolia v Harris, 16 AD3d 561 [2005]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). H. Miller, J.E, S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, 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, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated December 8, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). Therefore, we need not consider the alleged [550]*550insufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Mendolia v Harris, 16 AD3d 561 [2005]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). H. Miller, J.E, S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 549, 798 N.Y.S.2d 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florio-v-pape-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack