Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2001 |
| Citation | 283 A.D.2d 538,725 N.Y.S.2d 349 |
| Parties | PHYLLIS COSCIA et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>938 TRADING CORP. et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidence that the plaintiff Phyllis Coscia was suffering from restrictions of motion in her lumbar spine. Furthermore, the defendants submitted contradictory proof as to whether the injured plaintiff's lumbar spine condition was caused by the subject accident or a degenerative disease (see, Julemis v Gates, 281 AD2d 396; DeVeglio v Oliveri, 277 AD2d 345). Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the injuries allegedly sustained by Phyllis Coscia were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the defendants' motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Balducci v. Velasquez
...the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers, and the Supreme Court properly denied his motion ( see Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538, 725 N.Y.S.2d 349). The Supreme Court also properly denied the separate cross motions of the Behnambakhshes and Decanio. The medical repor......
-
Rhames v. Moran
...See Smith v. Quicci, supra; Giammalva v. Winters, 59 A.D.3d 595, 873 N.Y.S.2d 227 (2d Dept. 2009); Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538, 725 N.Y.S.2d 349 (2d Dept. 2001). All parties shall appear for trial in Nassau County Supreme Court, DCM Trial Part on November 4, 2010 at 9:30 a.m......
-
Grisales v. City of N.Y.
...to consider whether the plaintiffs' papers in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538, 725 N.Y.S.2d 349). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the municipal defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissi......
-
Leopold v. N.Y. City Transit Auth.
...157; Chiara v. Dernago, 70 A.D.3d at 746, 894 N.Y.S.2d 129; Gaccione v. Krebs, 53 A.D.3d 524, 863 N.Y.S.2d 444; Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538, 538, 725 N.Y.S.2d 349). FISHER, J.P., COVELLO, BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., ...