Krat v. D'Amico, 18 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Krat v. D'Amico, 18 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Ippolito v. TJC Development, LLC (nyappdiv, 2011-03-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ippolito v. TJC Development, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Accordingly, because the plaintiffs’ Lien Law article 3-A claim insofar as as serted against TJC should have or could have been resolved in the prior arbitration proceeding, the plaintiffs are barred by the doctrine of res judicata from asserting their claim against TJC here (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 357 ; Kaufman v Village of Mamaroneck, 18 AD3d 505, 505 [2005]; Town of New Windsor v New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403, 405 [2005]; Fogel v Oelmann, 7 AD3d 485, 486 [2004]; Matter of Miller v Kozakiewicz, 300 AD2d 399, 400 [2002]).
cited Cited "see" Laramie Springtree Corp. v. Equity Residential Properties Trust
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]; see Kaufman v Village of Mamaroneck, 18 AD3d 505 [2005]; Nissequogue Boat Club v State of New York, 14 AD3d 542, 544 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert L. Krat
v.
Michael A. D'Amico
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 9, 2005.
18 A.D.3d 505
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5096
Published

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 13, 2004, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff Kathryn Krat on the ground that the plaintiff Kathryn Krat did not[*506] sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5012 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Kathryn Krat (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The affirmed report of Dr. Andrew Dowd and the affirmed MRI reports of Dr. Allen Rothpearl demonstrate as a matter of law that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject accident (see generally Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]; Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Paul v Trerotola, 11 AD3d 441, 442 [2004]; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 83-84 [2000]). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.