From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mauro v. Mearsheimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 1994
207 A.D.2d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 26, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.


We find that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants in this case. The defendants' own submissions, which include a report from the defendants' own examining physician, indicate that the plaintiff Carol Mauro suffered some hearing loss as a result of the automobile accident with the defendants. There is also evidence in the record that Carol Mauro suffered from the hearing loss up to two years after the accident. Therefore, there was evidence of a "serious injury" within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; § 5102 [d]; Scheer v. Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678; Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1020; Partlow v. Meehan, 155 A.D.2d 647, 648; Petrone v. Thornton, 166 A.D.2d 513, 514; Redmond v. Schultz, 152 A.D.2d 823). Thompson, J.P., Miller, O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mauro v. Mearsheimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 1994
207 A.D.2d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Mauro v. Mearsheimer

Case Details

Full title:CAROL MAURO et al., Appellants, v. SUSAN MEARSHEIMER et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Sep 26, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 650

Citing Cases

Parker v. New York City Transit Auth

In any event, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion for summary judgment since the Transit Authority…

Jacobsen v. Morales

The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within…