Merlo v. Pupke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merlo v. Pupke

276 A.D.2d 604, 714 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10426

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 16, 2000·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated October 29, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants Antonio S. Mazzarella and Paul Mazzarella, in which the defendants Maria A. Pupke and Frederick J. Pupke joined, 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 affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff [605]*605did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508; Turchuk v Town of Wallkill, 255 AD2d 576; Phillips v Costa, 160 AD2d 855; see also, Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, 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 (Lally, J.), dated October 29, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants Antonio S. Mazzarella and Paul Mazzarella, in which the defendants Maria A. Pupke and Frederick J. Pupke joined, 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 affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff [605]*605did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508; Turchuk v Town of Wallkill, 255 AD2d 576; Phillips v Costa, 160 AD2d 855; see also, Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Merlo v. Pupke, 276 A.D.2d 604, 714 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 604 (Merlo v. Pupke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related