LaGreca v. Ebeling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaGreca v. Ebeling

156 A.D.2d 337, 548 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15354

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 1989·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered December 2, 1988, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In answer to the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, the plaintiff alleges that the injuries she sustained as a result of the accident are serious injuries within the definition of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) in that they are permanent injuries. The plaintiff, however, has failed to present any proof to show that her injuries are permanent. Her doctor’s affidavit states only that "[h]er prognosis remains guarded”. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint (see, Zoldas v Louise Cab Corp., 108 AD2d 378; De Filippo v White, 101 AD2d 801; see also, Epstein v Butera, 155 AD2d 513). Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered December 2, 1988, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In answer to the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, the plaintiff alleges that the injuries she sustained as a result of the accident are serious injuries within the definition of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) in that they are permanent injuries. The plaintiff, however, has failed to present any proof to show that her injuries are permanent. Her doctor’s affidavit states only that "[h]er prognosis remains guarded”. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint (see, Zoldas v Louise Cab Corp., 108 AD2d 378; De Filippo v White, 101 AD2d 801; see also, Epstein v Butera, 155 AD2d 513). Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

LaGreca v. Ebeling, 156 A.D.2d 337, 548 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

156 A.D.2d 337 (LaGreca v. Ebeling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related