Pirrotta v. LaTorre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pirrotta v. LaTorre

292 A.D.2d 435, 738 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 435 (Pirrotta v. LaTorre) 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

Pirrotta v. LaTorre, 292 A.D.2d 435, 738 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered May 15, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants submitted admissible evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff Giovanna Pirrotta did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiffs failed to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Harney v Tombstone Pizza Corp., 279 AD2d 609; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79).

In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller 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, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered May 15, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants submitted admissible evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff Giovanna Pirrotta did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiffs failed to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Harney v Tombstone Pizza Corp., 279 AD2d 609; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79).

In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 435, 738 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pirrotta-v-latorre-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack