Salomon v. Borzon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salomon v. Borzon

299 A.D.2d 534, 750 N.Y.S.2d 508

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 534 (Salomon v. Borzon) 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

Salomon v. Borzon, 299 A.D.2d 534, 750 N.Y.S.2d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated [535]*535November 13, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Amatsia Salomon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon the defendants’ prima facie showing that the plaintiff Amatsia Salomon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained such an injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit (see Zecca v Riccardelli, 293 AD2d 31). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, 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, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated [535]*535November 13, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Amatsia Salomon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon the defendants’ prima facie showing that the plaintiff Amatsia Salomon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained such an injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit (see Zecca v Riccardelli, 293 AD2d 31). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 534, 750 N.Y.S.2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salomon-v-borzon-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack