Serao v. Lobrutto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serao v. Lobrutto

283 A.D.2d 632, 725 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5511

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 632 (Serao v. Lobrutto) 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

Serao v. Lobrutto, 283 A.D.2d 632, 725 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated July 31, 2000, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[633]*633Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as he submitted admissible evidence demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to come forward with competent evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365; Decayette v Kreger Truck Renting, 260 AD2d 342; Perez v Velez, 253 AD2d 865). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Gold-stein, Schmidt and Crane, 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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated July 31, 2000, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[633]*633Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as he submitted admissible evidence demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to come forward with competent evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365; Decayette v Kreger Truck Renting, 260 AD2d 342; Perez v Velez, 253 AD2d 865). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Gold-stein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 632, 725 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serao-v-lobrutto-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack