Liporace v. Baskshi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liporace v. Baskshi

289 A.D.2d 26, 733 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11633

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 26 (Liporace v. Baskshi) 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

Liporace v. Baskshi, 289 A.D.2d 26, 733 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered November 1, 2000, insofar as it granted that part of the motion of defendants Budget Car/ Truck Rental, Inc. and Patrick Henre Jean-Francois for summary judgment dismissing the claims of plaintiff Ralph Liporace, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The admissible evidence set forth in opposition to defendants’ motion by plaintiff Ralph Liporace, which included no quantified findings as to any permanent consequential or significant physical limitation suffered by Mr. Liporace, was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether his injuries met the serious injury threshold of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Foley v Karvelis, 276 AD2d 666; Sherlock v Smith, 273 AD2d 95). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered November 1, 2000, insofar as it granted that part of the motion of defendants Budget Car/ Truck Rental, Inc. and Patrick Henre Jean-Francois for summary judgment dismissing the claims of plaintiff Ralph Liporace, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The admissible evidence set forth in opposition to defendants’ motion by plaintiff Ralph Liporace, which included no quantified findings as to any permanent consequential or significant physical limitation suffered by Mr. Liporace, was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether his injuries met the serious injury threshold of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Foley v Karvelis, 276 AD2d 666; Sherlock v Smith, 273 AD2d 95). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 26, 733 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liporace-v-baskshi-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack