Jaimes v. Canarsie Lumber, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaimes v. Canarsie Lumber, Inc.

302 A.D.2d 494, 755 N.Y.S.2d 282

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 18, 2003·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 27, 2002, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Crisantos Jaimes did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that the plaintiff Crisantos Jaimes did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted (see Licari v Elliott, 57 [495] NY2d 230 [1982]). Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, 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 and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 27, 2002, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Crisantos Jaimes did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that the plaintiff Crisantos Jaimes did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted (see Licari v Elliott, 57 [495] NY2d 230 [1982]). Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Jaimes v. Canarsie Lumber, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 494, 755 N.Y.S.2d 282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

302 A.D.2d 494 (Jaimes v. Canarsie Lumber, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related