Torena v. Hazel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torena v. Hazel

17 A.D.3d 348, 791 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3483

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

DecidedApril 4, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 348 (Torena v. Hazel) 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

Torena v. Hazel, 17 A.D.3d 348, 791 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered August 24, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Daniel Torena did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Daniel Torena did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the plaintiffs produced sufficient competent objective medical evidence to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered August 24, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Daniel Torena did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Daniel Torena did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the plaintiffs produced sufficient competent objective medical evidence to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 348, 791 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torena-v-hazel-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack