Mosquea v. Capra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mosquea v. Capra

298 A.D.2d 370, 751 N.Y.S.2d 394, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9376

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 370 (Mosquea v. Capra) 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

Mosquea v. Capra, 298 A.D.2d 370, 751 N.Y.S.2d 394, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal [371]*371(1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated October 2, 2001, as granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Sixto Mosquea did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and (2) from an order of the same court, dated March 21, 2002, which denied their motion for leave to reargue and renew.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated March 21, 2002, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for leave to reargue; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 2, 2001, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated March 21, 2002, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to renew is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

In response to the defendants having made out a prima facie case for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiffs’ opposition sufficiently raised triable issues of fact requiring the denial of the motion. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, 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 [371]*371(1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated October 2, 2001, as granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Sixto Mosquea did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and (2) from an order of the same court, dated March 21, 2002, which denied their motion for leave to reargue and renew.