From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malfitano v. Soria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2001
280 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted January 17, 2001.

February 13, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated May 4, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Frank A. Composto, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.

Baron Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Isaac M. Dana of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established a prima facie case that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs failed to do so. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted (see, Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365; Perez v. Velez, 253 A.D.2d 865; Marshall v. Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268).


Summaries of

Malfitano v. Soria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2001
280 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Malfitano v. Soria

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD MALFITANO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. JULIO SORIA, ET AL., APPELLANTS

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

Date published: Feb 13, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 401