Sansalone v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sansalone v. Regan

212 A.D.2d 771, 623 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14421

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 771 (Sansalone v. Regan) 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

Sansalone v. Regan, 212 A.D.2d 771, 623 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [772]*772for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated January 3, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

The defendant failed to establish a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since she failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the Insurance Law (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Craft v Brantuk, 195 AD2d 438; Marsh v Wolfson, 186 AD2d 115, 115-116). The plaintiff’s bill of particulars alleged that she had sustained a significant limitation of a body organ, member function, or system. The defendant submitted no objective medical evidence to contradict that allegation. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages [772]*772for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated January 3, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

The defendant failed to establish a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since she failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the Insurance Law (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Craft v Brantuk, 195 AD2d 438; Marsh v Wolfson, 186 AD2d 115, 115-116). The plaintiff’s bill of particulars alleged that she had sustained a significant limitation of a body organ, member function, or system. The defendant submitted no objective medical evidence to contradict that allegation. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 771, 623 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sansalone-v-regan-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack