Phojanakong v. Eterno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phojanakong v. Eterno

272 A.D.2d 594, 708 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6034

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 594 (Phojanakong v. Eterno) 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

Phojanakong v. Eterno, 272 A.D.2d 594, 708 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 29, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff had sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[595]*595The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs’ injuries were not serious through the affirmed reports of an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Kenneth Falvo, and a neurologist, Dr. Terence McAlarney, who examined each plaintiff and respectively concluded that neither one of them had sustained either an orthopedic or a neurological disability (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 29, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff had sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[595]*595The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs’ injuries were not serious through the affirmed reports of an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Kenneth Falvo, and a neurologist, Dr. Terence McAlarney, who examined each plaintiff and respectively concluded that neither one of them had sustained either an orthopedic or a neurological disability (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 594, 708 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phojanakong-v-eterno-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack