From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Caramanica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 2003
302 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-02985

Submitted January 22, 2003.

February 18, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 7, 2002, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Richard J. Baldwin, Hauppauge, N.Y. (William C. Muller of counsel), for appellant.

Michael S. Langella, Ronkonkoma, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting, among other things, affirmations by her examining physicians, which indicated that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Kallicharan v. Sooknanan, 282 A.D.2d 573; Santoro v. Daniel, 276 A.D.2d 478). However, the plaintiff successfully opposed the motion by raising a triable issue of fact (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Young v. Caramanica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 2003
302 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Young v. Caramanica

Case Details

Full title:TRACEY YOUNG, respondent, v. CHRISTINE J. CARAMANICA, appellant

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

Date published: Feb 18, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 263

Citing Cases

Cessman v. Scettini

Cessman claims that such injuries cause stiffness, numbness, headaches, discomfort, restriction of motion,…