Bebry v. Farkas-Galindez
| Decision Date | 23 October 2000 |
| Citation | 714 N.Y.S.2d 734,276 A.D.2d 656 |
| Parties | JOSEPH S. BEBRY, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>E.J. FARKAS-GALINDEZ et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, with costs to abide the event.
The plaintiff sustained a fractured foot and other injuries in an automobile accident. During the damages trial, the Supreme Court charged the jury that the plaintiff sustained a fractured foot as a matter of law. Since a fracture is included within the statutory definition of "serious injury" (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Kolios v Znack, 237 AD2d 333), the Supreme Court erred in instructing the jury to determine, inter alia, whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent consequential limitation of his foot.
Moreover, the Supreme Court erred in instructing the jury to determine whether the plaintiff's sternum was fractured and whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent consequential limitation of his sternum. "If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case that any one of several injuries that he or she sustained in an accident is a `serious injury' within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), he or she is entitled to seek recovery for all injuries incurred as a result of the accident" (O'Neill v O'Neill, 261 AD2d 459, 460; Preston v Young, 239 AD2d 729, 731, n; Kelley v Balasco, 226 AD2d 880). Under the circumstances, a new trial is required.
In light of this determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fraser v. Bauch
... ... injuries she sustained as a result of the accident (see ... Nussbaum, 166 A.D.3d at 639; Bebry v ... Farkas-Galindez, 276 A.D.2d 656 [2d Dept 2000]). Thus, ... this Court need not determine at this time as to whether ... plaintiff's other ... ...
-
Diliberto v. Barberich
...she had a fractured rib, which constitutes a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Bebry v. Farkas–Galindez, 276 A.D.2d 656, 714 N.Y.S.2d 734), she failed to establish, prima facie, that the injury was causally related to the subject accident ( see Kapeleris v. ......
-
Nussbaum v. Chase
...544, 545, 756 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; see Insurance Law § 5104[a] ; Rizzo v. DeSimone, 6 A.D.3d 600, 601, 775 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Bebry v. Farkas–Galindez, 276 A.D.2d 656, 714 N.Y.S.2d 734 ; Prieston v. Massaro, 107 A.D.2d 742, 743–744, 484 N.Y.S.2d 104 ). Here, we agree with the Supreme Court's conclusio......
- Beltran v. Shi
-
F. The Serious Injury Threshold
...485 N.Y.S.2d 944 (Co. Ct., Onondaga Co. 1985).[539] Singer v. Gae Limo Corp., 91 A.D.3d 526 (1st Dep't 2012); Bebry v. Farkas-Galindez, 276 A.D.2d 656, 656, 714 N.Y.S.2d 734 (2d Dep't 2000); O'Neill v. O'Neill, 261 A.D.2d 459, 690 N.Y.S.2d 277 (2d Dep't 1999); see also Rizzo v. DeSimone, 6 ......
-
F. The Serious Injury Threshold
...485 N.Y.S.2d 944 (Co. Ct., Onondaga Co. 1985).[556] Singer v. Gae Limo Corp., 91 A.D.3d 526 (1st Dep't 2012); Bebry v. Farkas-Galindez, 276 A.D.2d 656, 656, 714 N.Y.S.2d 734 (2d Dep't 2000); O'Neill v. O'Neill, 261 A.D.2d 459, 690 N.Y.S.2d 277 (2d Dep't 1999); see also Rizzo v. DeSimone, 6 ......