Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Regina QUADROZZI, et al., respondents, v. Adedayo SALAKO, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Adedayo Salako and Thomas Salako appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated November 16, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the appellants established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury in the subject collision (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with sufficient evidence that the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 235, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088; Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 494 N.Y.S.2d 101, 484 N.E.2d 130). As the plaintiffs offered no evidence in opposition to the appellants' motion, they did not raise a triable question of fact on the issue. Therefore, the appellants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 01, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)