From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sotirhos v. Pinello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 1994
209 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.).


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

The defendants made out a prima facie case that the plaintiffs had not sustained "serious injuries" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical reports submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment revealed that the individual plaintiffs had sustained either cervical, thoracic, or lumbar sprains, with an unspecified degree of restriction of motion. The opposing papers were insufficient to establish that the plaintiffs suffered either "permanent loss of use" or "significant limitation" of a body organ, member, function, or system (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Tipping-Cestari v Kilhenny, 174 A.D.2d 663, 664). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sotirhos v. Pinello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 1994
209 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Sotirhos v. Pinello

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY SOTIRHOS, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, CHRISTINE…

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

Date published: Nov 28, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 319

Citing Cases

SAHA v. SANANDRES

Furthermore, all competent evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion…

McRae v. Alauddin

Once the defendant has established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury,"…