Mauro v. Mearsheimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mauro v. Mearsheimer

207 A.D.2d 872, 616 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9081

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 872 (Mauro v. Mearsheimer) 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

Mauro v. Mearsheimer, 207 A.D.2d 872, 616 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated January 11, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff Carol Mauro did not suffer a serious injury, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

We find that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants in this case. The defendants’ own submissions, which include a report from the defendants’ own examining physician, indicate that the plaintiff Carol Mauro suffered some hearing loss as a result of the automobile accident with the defendants. There is also evidence in the record that Carol Mauro suffered from the hearing loss up to two years after the accident. Therefore, there was evidence of a "serious injury” within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; § 5102 [d]; Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1020; Partlow v Meehan, 155 AD2d 647, 648; Petrone v Thornton, 166 AD2d 513, 514; Redmond v Schultz, 152 AD2d 823). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, 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, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated January 11, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff Carol Mauro did not suffer a serious injury, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

We find that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants in this case. The defendants’ own submissions, which include a report from the defendants’ own examining physician, indicate that the plaintiff Carol Mauro suffered some hearing loss as a result of the automobile accident with the defendants. There is also evidence in the record that Carol Mauro suffered from the hearing loss up to two years after the accident. Therefore, there was evidence of a "serious injury” within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; § 5102 [d]; Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1020; Partlow v Meehan, 155 AD2d 647, 648; Petrone v Thornton, 166 AD2d 513, 514; Redmond v Schultz, 152 AD2d 823). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 872, 616 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauro-v-mearsheimer-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack