Sanfilippo v. VT Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanfilippo v. VT Inc.

278 A.D.2d 301, 718 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 301 (Sanfilippo v. VT Inc.) 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

Sanfilippo v. VT Inc., 278 A.D.2d 301, 718 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Bonnie E. Barnett and Douglas E. Barnett appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated May 17, 2000, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The appellants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so, and thus, the appellants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Shay v Jerkins, 263 AD2d 475). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 defendants Bonnie E. Barnett and Douglas E. Barnett appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated May 17, 2000, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The appellants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so, and thus, the appellants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Shay v Jerkins, 263 AD2d 475). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 301, 718 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanfilippo-v-vt-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack