From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colinares v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted December 22, 1999

February 10, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated February 22, 1999, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Berlinda Colinares did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Chelli Bush, Staten Island, N.Y. (Marvin Ben-Aron of counsel), for appellants.

Molod Spitz DeSantis Stark, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Salvatore DeSantis and Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for respondents.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL W. JOY, LEO F. McGINITY.


DECISION ORDER


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Loiseau v. Maxwell, 256 A.D.2d 450 ; Edwards v. DeHaven, 155 A.D.2d 757 ; Post v. Broderick, 104 A.D.2d 977 ).


Summaries of

Colinares v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Colinares v. Washington

Case Details

Full title:BERLINDA COLINARES, et al., appellants, v. CHARLES M. WASHINGTON, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 10, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 570

Citing Cases

Keith v. Suburban Transit Corp.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to…