From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hadley v. Keren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 2009
59 A.D.3d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2007-07681.

February 3, 2009.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated June 13, 2007, as granted the separate motions of the defendants Marie Christine Warren and United Services Automobile Association, and the defendant Jose M. Miranda, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and granted those branches of the separate cross motions of the defendant Ofir A. Keren and the defendant Gennady Diefvsky which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Rubin of counsel), for appellants.

Cohen, Kuhn Associates, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan D. Gorham of counsel), for respondent Ofir A. Keren (joining in the other respondents' briefs).

Paul F. McAloon, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondents Marie Christina Warren and United Services Automobile Association.

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Evan H. Krinick, Cheryl F. Korman, and Melissa M. Murphy of counsel), for respondent Jose A. Miranda.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Miller, Carni and McCarthy, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants established, prima facie, that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see CPLR 3212 [b]).

[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 31674(U).]


Summaries of

Hadley v. Keren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 2009
59 A.D.3d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Hadley v. Keren

Case Details

Full title:DANTE HADLEY et al., Appellants, v. OFIR A. KEREN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2009

Citations

59 A.D.3d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 647
871 N.Y.S.2d 918