Rampello v. Ferguson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rampello v. Ferguson

280 A.D.2d 986, 720 N.Y.S.2d 421, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 986 (Rampello v. Ferguson) 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

Rampello v. Ferguson, 280 A.D.2d 986, 720 N.Y.S.2d 421, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Anthony J. Rampello (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury in the motor vehicle accident on March 8, 1995 (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Defendant failed to make “a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by coming forward with competent proof refuting the allegations of the complaint as amplified by the bill of particulars” (Balnys v Town of New Baltimore, 160 AD2d 1136; see, Owens v Nolan, 269 AD2d 794). Defendant’s expert found that plaintiff was injured in the accident and did not refute the allegation that the injury was permanent. The failure of defendant to meet his initial burden on his motion “requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Anthony J. Rampello (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury in the motor vehicle accident on March 8, 1995 (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Defendant failed to make “a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by coming forward with competent proof refuting the allegations of the complaint as amplified by the bill of particulars” (Balnys v Town of New Baltimore, 160 AD2d 1136; see, Owens v Nolan, 269 AD2d 794). Defendant’s expert found that plaintiff was injured in the accident and did not refute the allegation that the injury was permanent. The failure of defendant to meet his initial burden on his motion “requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 986, 720 N.Y.S.2d 421, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rampello-v-ferguson-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack