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

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 337 (LaGreca v. Ebeling) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 337, 548 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lagreca-v-ebeling-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack