Notaro v U.S. Limousine Serv., Ltd. (2007 NYSlipOp 50498(U))

Notaro v U.S. Limousine Serv., Ltd.

2007 NYSlipOp 50498(U)

Decided on March 13, 2007

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Jack Notaro and Rosalie Notaro, Appellants,

against

U.S. Limousine Service, Ltd. and A.J. Sarrantonio, Respondents, -and- John D. Hernandez and Rafael Hernandez, Defendants.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Adam H. Moser, J.), entered on August 23, 2003. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion for summary judgment by defendants U.S. Limousine Service, Ltd. and A.J. Sarrantonio.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff Jack Notaro was injured while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by A.J. Sarrantonio and owned by defendant U.S. Limousine Service, Ltd. The vehicle was involved in an intersection collision with a vehicle driven by John D. Hernandez and owned by Rafael Hernandez. The court granted the motion by defendants John D. Hernandez and Rafael Hernandez for summary judgment on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not satisfy the threshold requirement of suffering a serous injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and plaintiffs appealed therefrom. Plaintiffs and defendants John D. Hernandez and Rafael Hernandez subsequently entered into a stipulation withdrawing the appeal. The court also granted the motion by defendants U.S. Limousine Service, Ltd. and A.J. Sarrantonio for summary judgment on the additional ground that said defendants were not negligent as a matter of law.

The order, insofar as reviewed, should be affirmed. The sole issue raised in plaintiffs' [*2]appellate brief is that the court below erred in determining that the injured plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury. Since the court below found, inter alia, that defendants U.S. Limousine Service, Ltd. and A.J. Sarrantonio were not negligent as a matter of law, and plaintiffs did not challenge that finding on appeal, the order granting said defendants' motion may not be disturbed (see e.g. Velte v Jainew Enters 122 AD2d 544 [1986]). Accordingly, we need not reach the issue of whether the injured plaintiff satisfied the threshold requirement of suffering a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d).