Rotella v. Mace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rotella v. Mace

89 A.D.3d 1005, 933 N.Y.2d 362

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1005 (Rotella v. Mace) 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

Rotella v. Mace, 89 A.D.3d 1005, 933 N.Y.2d 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Linda Rotella (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that as a result of the subject accident, the cervicothoracic region of the injured plaintiffs spine sustained certain injuries, and the defendants provided competent medical evidence establishing, inter alia, that those alleged injuries did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Eng, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Linda Rotella (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that as a result of the subject accident, the cervicothoracic region of the injured plaintiffs spine sustained certain injuries, and the defendants provided competent medical evidence establishing, inter alia, that those alleged injuries did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Eng, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 1005, 933 N.Y.2d 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotella-v-mace-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack