Richman v. Genese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richman v. Genese

8 A.D.3d 548, 778 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8726

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

DecidedJune 21, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 548 (Richman v. Genese) 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

Richman v. Genese, 8 A.D.3d 548, 778 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 21, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Howard Rich-man did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Howard Richman (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmations of the plaintiffs’ physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Guzman v Paul Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508, 509 [1999]; Pietrocola v Battibulli, 238 AD2d 864, 865 [1997]; Barrett v Howland, 202 AD2d 383, 384 [1994]).

Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, 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 so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 21, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Howard Rich-man did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Howard Richman (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmations of the plaintiffs’ physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Guzman v Paul Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508, 509 [1999]; Pietrocola v Battibulli, 238 AD2d 864, 865 [1997]; Barrett v Howland, 202 AD2d 383, 384 [1994]).

Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 548, 778 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richman-v-genese-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack