Penafiel v. Joyce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Penafiel v. Joyce

289 A.D.2d 384, 734 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12145

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 384 (Penafiel v. Joyce) 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

Penafiel v. Joyce, 289 A.D.2d 384, 734 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated January 22, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Joseph Joyce and Jeanette Joyce, and the separate motion of the defendant Guido Penafiel, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff Lorie Penafiel did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants Joseph Joyce and Jeanette Joyce.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ prima facie showing that the plaintiff Lorie Penafiel did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of [385]*385Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants dismissing the complaint (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, 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, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated January 22, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Joseph Joyce and Jeanette Joyce, and the separate motion of the defendant Guido Penafiel, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff Lorie Penafiel did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants Joseph Joyce and Jeanette Joyce.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ prima facie showing that the plaintiff Lorie Penafiel did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of [385]*385Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants dismissing the complaint (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 384, 734 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penafiel-v-joyce-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack