From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gant v. Sparacino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 1994
203 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 25, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is evidence in the record that, as a result of injuries suffered in an automobile accident with the defendant, the plaintiff was out of work for 16 weeks. This fact, if true, is sufficient to meet the threshold requirement of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) that the plaintiff make a prima facie showing of "serious injury". A court in deciding a summary judgment motion must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (see, Passonno v Hall, 125 A.D.2d 767), and if there is a triable issue of fact, must deny the motion (see, Hourigan v McGarry, 106 A.D.2d 845). Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gant v. Sparacino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 1994
203 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Gant v. Sparacino

Case Details

Full title:KEITHLYN GANT, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SPARACINO, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 25, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 952

Citing Cases

Vignola v. Varrichio

The fact that the diagnosis of Mr. Vignola's orthopedist was not confirmed by a Magnetic Resonance Imaging…

Thompson v. Bronx Merch. Funding Servs., LLC

In order to come within this category, a plaintiff must establish four (4) requirements: 1. The plaintiff…