Narrative Opinion Summary
In a case concerning personal injury damages, the defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied his motion for summary judgment aimed at dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d). The appellate court modified the order by granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint concerning plaintiff Natalie Henao, determining that her injuries did not qualify as serious under the law. However, the court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding the injuries sustained by plaintiff Armando Henao, thus allowing that portion of the case to proceed. The modified order was affirmed without costs or disbursements, with all justices concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of Serious Injury Under Insurance Law § 5102(d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated the seriousness of the injuries, concluding that Natalie Henao's injuries did not meet the statutory threshold, resulting in dismissal of her complaint.
Reasoning: The appellate court modified the order by granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint concerning plaintiff Natalie Henao, determining that her injuries did not qualify as serious under the law.
Summary Judgment in Personal Injury Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the denial of a summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss the complaint based on the alleged non-serious nature of the injuries under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Reasoning: The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied his motion for summary judgment aimed at dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Triable Issues of Fact in Personal Injury Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court identified triable issues regarding the extent of Armando Henao's injuries, thereby permitting his claim to proceed to trial.
Reasoning: However, the court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding the injuries sustained by plaintiff Armando Henao, thus allowing that portion of the case to proceed.