Marconi v. Huber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marconi v. Huber

272 A.D.2d 589, 709 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 589 (Marconi v. Huber) 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

Marconi v. Huber, 272 A.D.2d 589, 709 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered March 16, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she 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 prima facie, through the affirmations of an orthopedist and a neurologist, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered March 16, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she 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 prima facie, through the affirmations of an orthopedist and a neurologist, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 589, 709 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marconi-v-huber-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack