Jamison v. Garcia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jamison v. Garcia

41 A.D.3d 542, 836 N.Y.S.2d 438

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 542 (Jamison v. Garcia) 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

Jamison v. Garcia, 41 A.D.3d 542, 836 N.Y.S.2d 438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Akhnaton Gomez and Jorge Gomez appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 22, 2006, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 appellants established, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The plaintiff, however, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she lost her fetus due to this accident rather than as a result of a voluntary termination of pregnancy (see Yu v C & A Seneca Constr, 40 AD3d 630 [2007]; Berkshire Nursing Ctr., Inc. v Novello, 13 AD3d 327, 328-329 [2004]).

The appellants’ remaining contention regarding the disposition of the codefendants’ cross motion is not before us on this appeal. Crane, J.P, Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, 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 Akhnaton Gomez and Jorge Gomez appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 22, 2006, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 appellants established, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The plaintiff, however, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she lost her fetus due to this accident rather than as a result of a voluntary termination of pregnancy (see Yu v C & A Seneca Constr, 40 AD3d 630 [2007]; Berkshire Nursing Ctr., Inc. v Novello, 13 AD3d 327, 328-329 [2004]).

The appellants’ remaining contention regarding the disposition of the codefendants’ cross motion is not before us on this appeal. Crane, J.P, Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 542, 836 N.Y.S.2d 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamison-v-garcia-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack