Navarro v. Noa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Navarro v. Noa

303 A.D.2d 567, 756 N.Y.S.2d 484

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 567 (Navarro v. Noa) 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

Navarro v. Noa, 303 A.D.2d 567, 756 N.Y.S.2d 484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated June 4, 2002, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 costs.

The plaintiff failed to come forward with admissible evidence, and thus did not rebut the defendants’ initial showings that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated June 4, 2002, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 costs.

The plaintiff failed to come forward with admissible evidence, and thus did not rebut the defendants’ initial showings that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 567, 756 N.Y.S.2d 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/navarro-v-noa-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack