CompFox AI Summary
The plaintiffs appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The appeal was based on the plaintiffs' alleged failure to establish that Donald Barrett suffered a 'serious injury' under Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and the dismissal of a property damage claim. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient objective evidence of a 'serious injury,' affirming that part of the judgment. However, the court found that the Supreme Court improperly dismissed the cause of action for damages to the plaintiffs' motor vehicle, as the defendants' motions were not directed at this claim and no evidence was presented on the issue. Consequently, the order and judgment was modified to reinstate the third cause of action for property damage and otherwise affirmed.
Barrett v. Howland is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The plaintiffs appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The appeal was based on the plaintiffs' alleged failure to establish that Donald Barrett suffered a 'serious injury' under Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and the dismissal of a property damage claim. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient objective evidence of a 'serious injury,' affirming that part of the judgment. However, the court found that the Supreme Court improperly dismissed the cause of action for damages to the plaintiffs' motor vehicle, as the defendants' motions were not directed at this claim and no evidence was presented on the issue. Consequently, the order and judgment was modified to reinstate the third cause of action for property damage and otherwise affirmed.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.