Loporto v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loporto v. New York City Transit Authority

276 A.D.2d 472, 713 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9819

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 472 (Loporto v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Loporto v. New York City Transit Authority, 276 A.D.2d 472, 713 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated September 17, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Deborah Loporto did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established a prima facie case that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Deborah Loporto were not serious through the affirmation of orthopedic surgeon Mark F. Sherman, who examined her and concluded that she had “no disability or impairments” (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955).

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated September 17, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Deborah Loporto did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established a prima facie case that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Deborah Loporto were not serious through the affirmation of orthopedic surgeon Mark F. Sherman, who examined her and concluded that she had “no disability or impairments” (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955).

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 472, 713 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loporto-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack