LoPresti v. McNiff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LoPresti v. McNiff

272 A.D.2d 587, 709 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6076

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 587 (LoPresti v. McNiff) 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

LoPresti v. McNiff, 272 A.D.2d 587, 709 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated July 2, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to [588]*588produce evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating the existence of a material issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Dimenshteyn v Caruso, 262 AD2d 348; Russell v City of Mount Vernon, 256 AD2d 454; DiNunzio v County of Suffolk, 256 AD2d 498; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assocs., 239 AD2d 394; Almonacid v Meltzer, 222 AD2d 631). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated July 2, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to [588]*588produce evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating the existence of a material issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Dimenshteyn v Caruso, 262 AD2d 348; Russell v City of Mount Vernon, 256 AD2d 454; DiNunzio v County of Suffolk, 256 AD2d 498; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assocs., 239 AD2d 394; Almonacid v Meltzer, 222 AD2d 631). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 587, 709 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopresti-v-mcniff-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack