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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 27, 2012·Published

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.

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

Pincite

96 A.D.3d 1013 (Li v. Triboro Coach Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related