Xian Da Lin v. Jian Hang Luo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Xian Da Lin v. Jian Hang Luo

276 A.D.2d 627, 715 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10375

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 627 (Xian Da Lin v. Jian Hang Luo) 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

Xian Da Lin v. Jian Hang Luo, 276 A.D.2d 627, 715 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Sal & Jerry Bakery, Inc., and Orlando Dutan appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated December 17, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained 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 motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants established a prima facie case that the plaintiffs’ injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the affirmed reports of an orthopedic surgeon and two neurologists who found no objective evidence of disability or functional impairment (see, Goldin v Lee, 275 AD2d 341; Meric v Cancela, 275 AD2d 309; Napoli v Cunningham, 273 AD2d 366; Greene v Miranda, 272 AD2d 441; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). The plaintiffs’ opposi[628]*628tion papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that issue (see, Grossman v Wright, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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 Sal & Jerry Bakery, Inc., and Orlando Dutan appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated December 17, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained 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 motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants established a prima facie case that the plaintiffs’ injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the affirmed reports of an orthopedic surgeon and two neurologists who found no objective evidence of disability or functional impairment (see, Goldin v Lee, 275 AD2d 341; Meric v Cancela, 275 AD2d 309; Napoli v Cunningham, 273 AD2d 366; Greene v Miranda, 272 AD2d 441; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). The plaintiffs’ opposi[628]*628tion papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that issue (see, Grossman v Wright, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 627, 715 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xian-da-lin-v-jian-hang-luo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack