From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Melvin v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2004
4 A.D.3d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-01523.

Decided February 2, 2004.

In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Maria Beatong and Septimus Beatong, plaintiffs in Action No. 1, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), dated December 18, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority and Ralph Lebron, and the separate motion of the defendant Dorothea Patterson, in Action No. 1, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by them on the ground that the plaintiff Maria Beatong did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Scott Star, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.

Morris, Duffy, Alonso Faley, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Anna J. Ervolina and Andrea M. Alonso of counsel), for respondents Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority and Ralph Lebron.

Martyn, Toher, Esposito, Martyn Adler, Mineola, N.Y. (John P. Reis of counsel), for respondent Dorothea Patterson.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES and REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondents in Action No. 1 made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Maria Beatong did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The affirmations of the plaintiff Maria Beatong's physicians submitted in opposition to the respondents' motions failed to establish that any of the identified limitations in movement were of a significant nature ( see Trotter v. Hart, 285 A.D.2d 772; Cabri v. Myung-Soo Park, 260 A.D.2d 525, 526, Williams v. Ciaramella, 250 A.D.2d 763; Medina v. Zalmen Reis and Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394, 395; Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang, 175 A.D.2d 204).

Accordingly, the respondents were entitled to summary judgment in their favor dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellants.

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Melvin v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2004
4 A.D.3d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Melvin v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Case Details

Full title:YOLANDA MELVIN, plaintiff, MARIA BEATONG, ET AL., appellants, v…

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

Date published: Feb 2, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 886

Citing Cases

Taylor v. George Hildebrandt Inc.

(see, Ifrach v. Neiman, 306 AD2d 380; Pajda v. Pedone, 303 AD2d 729; Claude v. Clements, 301 AD2d 554; Kassim…