From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Corbett v. County of Onondaga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 2002
291 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

CA 01-01786

February 1, 2002.

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (McCarthy, J.), entered April 27, 2001, that denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment.

ANTHONY P. RIVIZZIGNO, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOHN W. SHARON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

JAMES G. DI STEFANO, SYRACUSE, FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

PRESENT: WISNER, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND LAWTON, JJ.


It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Patrick J. Corbett (plaintiff) when his vehicle was rear-ended by a truck driven by defendant David I. Brown and owned by defendant County of Onondaga. Supreme Court properly denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because an issue of fact exists whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). It is well established that "conflicting expert opinions may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment" ( Williams v. Lucianatelli, 259 A.D.2d 1003).


Summaries of

Corbett v. County of Onondaga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 2002
291 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Corbett v. County of Onondaga

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK J. CORBETT AND JUDITH CORBETT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. COUNTY…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 621

Citing Cases

Taher v. Valerio-Mena

This case should be tried on the categories of "permanent consequential limitation" and "significant…

Taher v. Valerio-Mena

The motion for summary judgment is thus granted only to the extent of dismissing the "permanent loss of use"…