Legal Opinion
Gould v. Ombrellino
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 9, 2008PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant met her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the fracture, permanent consequential limitation of use, and/or significant limitation of use categories 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]). Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury under the fracture category…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Gaddy v. EylerNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Ferraro v. Ridge Car ServiceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- D'Onofrio v. Floton, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Leeber v. WardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
3Cited by25 opinions
- Taylor v. FlahertyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Bleszcz v. HiscockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Resek v. MorreareAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Catalano v. KopmannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Jack v. Acapulco Car Service, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.