General
Amatsia Salomon et al., Appellants, v. Ann M. Borzon et al., Respondents
299 A.D.2d 534750 N.Y.S.2d 508·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2002·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Amatsia Salomon et al., Appellants, v Ann M. Borzon et al., Respondents.
[750 NYS2d 508]
[MAJORITY]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated November 13, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Amatsia Salomon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Upon the defendants’ prima facie showing that the plaintiff Amatsia Salomon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained such an injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit (see Zecca v Riccardelli, 293 AD2d 31). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.