Grande v. Fernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grande v. Fernandez

46 A.D.3d 750, 847 N.Y.S.2d 480

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 750 (Grande v. Fernandez) 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

Grande v. Fernandez, 46 A.D.3d 750, 847 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), entered September 29, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Sarahi Grande did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Sarahi Grande 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 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Angiolillo, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), entered September 29, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Sarahi Grande did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Sarahi Grande 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 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 750, 847 N.Y.S.2d 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grande-v-fernandez-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack