Mauro v. Gold Star Limo Corp.
This text of 8 A.D.3d 352 (Mauro v. Gold Star Limo Corp.) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated May 23, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to reargue the defendants’ prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Linda Mauro did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and upon reargument, denied their motion for summary judgment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff [353]*353Linda Mauro did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the affirmations of the plaintiffs’ physicians, identifying limitations in motion of Mauro’s cervical and lumbar spines and jaw, submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion, were adequate to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Mauro sustained a serious injury.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment upon reargument. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 A.D.3d 352, 777 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauro-v-gold-star-limo-corp-nyappdiv-2004.