Mercurio v. Bacci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mercurio v. Bacci

15 A.D.3d 634, 792 N.Y.S.2d 97, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2018

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 634 (Mercurio v. Bacci) 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

Mercurio v. Bacci, 15 A.D.3d 634, 792 N.Y.S.2d 97, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J), dated December 23, 2003, as granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Anna Mercurio did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant established a prima facie case through the submission of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff Anna Mercurio and her medical records which showed that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]). The plaintiffs’ submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a serious injury. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, 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 plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J), dated December 23, 2003, as granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Anna Mercurio did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant established a prima facie case through the submission of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff Anna Mercurio and her medical records which showed that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Hodges v Jones, 238 AD2d 962 [1997]). The plaintiffs’ submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a serious injury. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 634, 792 N.Y.S.2d 97, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercurio-v-bacci-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack