Speed v. Mansolino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Speed v. Mansolino

300 A.D.2d 649, 751 N.Y.S.2d 776

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 649 (Speed v. Mansolino) 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

Speed v. Mansolino, 300 A.D.2d 649, 751 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated March 28, 2002, which denied his 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). However, the plaintiffs’ admissible evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated March 28, 2002, which denied his 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). However, the plaintiffs’ admissible evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 649, 751 N.Y.S.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speed-v-mansolino-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack