Malafronte v. Ford

Decision Date08 November 2006
Docket Number2005-08477.
Citation2006 NY Slip Op 08099,34 A.D.3d 435,823 N.Y.S.2d 350
PartiesADRIANNA MALAFRONTE et al., Appellants, v. AMEE FORD et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

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

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they sustained a serious injury. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the plaintiffs' remaining contention.

Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Beaton v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 21, 2021
    ...Bank Corp., 191 A.D.3d 962, 963; Zempoalteca v Ginsberg, 159 A.D.3d 1024; Yassa v Awad, 117 A.D.3d 1037, 1038; Lotenberg v Long Is. R.R., 34 A.D.3d 435). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without regard to......
  • Kimco Exchange Place Corp. v. Thomas Benz, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 8, 2006
  • Melish v. Melish, 2005-02449.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 8, 2006

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT