You are here: / / EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING...

EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NO-FAULT LAW, PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER ECONOMIC LOSS ABOVE THE STATUTORY BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS ($50,000).

The Third Department noted that even where (as in this case) “serious injury” within the meaning of the No-Fault law has not been demonstrated, an injured plaintiff may still be entitled economic loss above “basic economic loss:”

Under New York’s No-Fault Law, an injured party’s right to bring a personal injury action for noneconomic losses, i.e., “pain and suffering” (Insurance Law § 5102 [c]), arising out of an automobile accident is limited to those instances where such individual has incurred a serious injury … . However, basic economic loss coverage (up to $50,000) is available to a covered person regardless of fault (see Insurance Law § 5102 [a]) and “includes payments . . . for items such as lost earnings of up to $2,000 per month for three years after the date of the accident” … . Where, as here, an injured party asserts a claim for economic loss in excess of basic economic loss, he or she need not demonstrate that a serious injury was sustained … . Rather, all that is required is that such party demonstrate that his or her total economic loss actually exceeded basic economic loss … . To our analysis, “plaintiff[s] made a sufficient showing that [Jones] sustained economic loss in excess of basic economic loss to warrant submission of the issue to [a] jury” … and, therefore, Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiffs’ claim in this regard. Jones v Marshall, 2017 NY Slip Op 01432, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NO-FAULT LAW, PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER ECONOMIC LOSS ABOVE THE STATUTORY BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS ($50,000))/SERIOUS INJURY (NO-FAULT, EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NO-FAULT LAW, PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER ECONOMIC LOSS ABOVE THE STATUTORY BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS ($50,000))/BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS (NO-FAULT, EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NO-FAULT LAW, PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER ECONOMIC LOSS ABOVE THE STATUTORY BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS ($50,000))/ECONOMIC LOSS (NO-FAULT, EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NO-FAULT LAW, PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER ECONOMIC LOSS ABOVE THE STATUTORY BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS ($50,000))

You might also like
IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT THREATENED TO FIND RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT WHEN HE DID NOT PROVIDE PROOF HE FAILED TO APPEAR BECAUSE HE WAS HOSPITALIZED, FAMILY COURT DID NOT ULTIMATELY GIVE RESPONDENT A “DEFAULT WARNING;” RESPONDENT AND HIS COUNSEL WERE PRESENT AT THE FACT-FINDING BUT WERE PRECLUDED BY THE COURT FROM PARTICIPATING; RESPONDENT HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON THE ABANDONMENT ISSUE; REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
People Failed to Prove Seizure of Cocaine at Police Station Was Not the Fruit of the Illegal Arrest—Attenuation Not Demonstrated
Defendant’s Papers Deemed Insufficient to Trigger Need for Suppression Hearing
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE STATES THAT EMPIRE ZONE REAL PROPERTY TAX CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE WHEN THE TAX PAYER MAKES DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAX CREDITS EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM A MORTGAGE TAX ESCROW ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT).
Hearsay Evidence from Confidential Informant Insufficiently Detailed to Allow Independent Assessment of Credibility and Reliability
Bed and Breakfast Not Entitled to Homeowner’s Exemption
WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF AN ISSUE WHICH AROSE AFTER THE WAIVER, AT SENTENCING ALL WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, SENTENCING JUDGE HAD SINCE BECOME THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE COULD NOT, THEREFORE, REPRESENT DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).
NO CHILD SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HUSBAND MOVED TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE OF A LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE, CONTROLLED, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FRAUD-BASED AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLEADING... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION,...