From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schwartz v. Dumbrowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 16, 2001
282 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted March 21, 2001

April 16, 2001

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered April 18, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Cannavo, P.C., New York, N Y (John F. Nash and Stephen C. Glasser of counsel), for appellants.

McCabe, Collins, McGeough Fowler, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert H. Ringer of counsel), for respondent.

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


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019; Perez v. Velez, 253 A.D.2d 865; Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394; Marshall v. Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schwartz v. Dumbrowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 16, 2001
282 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Schwartz v. Dumbrowsky

Case Details

Full title:Samuel Schwartz, et al., appellants, v. Eitan Dumbrowsky, respondent

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
723 N.Y.S.2d 385

Citing Cases

Cangro v. Schwartz

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the…