Gennino v. Burns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gennino v. Burns

203 A.D.2d 241, 612 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228

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

DecidedApril 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 241 (Gennino v. Burns) 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

Gennino v. Burns, 203 A.D.2d 241, 612 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 6, 1992, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case that she sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the court should have granted summary judgment to the defendant (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Forte v Vaccaro, 175 AD2d 153; Zelenak v Clark, 170 AD2d 677). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 6, 1992, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case that she sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the court should have granted summary judgment to the defendant (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Forte v Vaccaro, 175 AD2d 153; Zelenak v Clark, 170 AD2d 677). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 241, 612 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gennino-v-burns-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack