From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tagger v. Olympic Van Line

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 13, 2007
38 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-03898.

March 13, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 8, 2006, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the eighth "affirmative defense" asserting that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Chalos, O'Connor Duffy, LLP, Port Washington, N.Y. (Michael Siravo of counsel), for appellants.

Robert Weiss, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Skelos, Carni and McCarthy, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the eighth "affirmative defense." The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the subject accident caused her to sustain a fracture, and thus, a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see generally Baez v Rahamatali, 6 NY3d 868, 869; Cervino v Gladysz-Steliga, 36 AD3d 744; cf. Benedetto v Carrera Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 874, 876).


Summaries of

Tagger v. Olympic Van Line

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 13, 2007
38 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Tagger v. Olympic Van Line

Case Details

Full title:ORLY TAGGER, Respondent, v. OLYMPIC VAN LINE, INC., et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Mar 13, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2107
830 N.Y.S.2d 673

Citing Cases

Schaefer v. Dennehy

A fracture constitutes a serious injury as a matter of law as defined by Insurance Law § 5102. See, Tagger v.…

Osegueda v. Nicklas

Dr. Farkas additionally notes that plaintiff's fractured coccyx has clinically healed. While that may be so,…