From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montano v. Macejka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 2003
1 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07972, 2003-00282

Submitted May 21, 2003.

November 10, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered July 22, 2002, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs Doris Montano and Maria M. Lopez did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated November 26, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew the prior motion for summary judgment.

Andrea Towsky, Garden City, N.Y. (Frank A. Andrea III and Robert W. Corcoran of counsel), for appellants.

Martyn, Toher, Esposito Martyn, Mineola, N.Y. (Joseph S. Holotka of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order entered July 22, 2002, is reversed, on the law, the motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated, and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated November 27, 2002, as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to renew is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

In support of his motion for summary judgment, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the injuries of the plaintiffs Doris Montano and Maria M. Lopez were not causally related to the accident, or that they were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Shin v. Torres, 295 A.D.2d 495; see also Franca v. Parisi, 298 A.D.2d 554; Junco v. Ranzi, 288 A.D.2d 440; Papadonikolakis v. First Fid. Leasing Group, 283 A.D.2d 470) . Accordingly, the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs' papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437).

RITTER, J.P., McGINITY, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Montano v. Macejka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 2003
1 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Montano v. Macejka

Case Details

Full title:DORIS MONTANO, ET AL., appellants, v. JOHN P. MACEJKA, respondent

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

Date published: Nov 10, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 904