Li v. Triboro Coach Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Li v. Triboro Coach Corp.

96 A.D.3d 1013, 946 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedJune 27, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 1013 (Li v. Triboro Coach Corp.) 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

Li v. Triboro Coach Corp., 96 A.D.3d 1013, 946 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens [1014]*1014County (Orlikoff-Flug, J.), entered March 29, 2010, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff Jie Li did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions on appeal, the jury’s finding that the plaintiff Jie Li did not sustain a serious injury under the fracture or the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Lott and Cohen, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens [1014]*1014County (Orlikoff-Flug, J.), entered March 29, 2010, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff Jie Li did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions on appeal, the jury’s finding that the plaintiff Jie Li did not sustain a serious injury under the fracture or the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 1013, 946 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/li-v-triboro-coach-corp-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack