Abate v. Kahrimanian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abate v. Kahrimanian

212 A.D.2d 557, 623 N.Y.S.2d 131

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 557 (Abate v. Kahrimanian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abate v. Kahrimanian, 212 A.D.2d 557, 623 N.Y.S.2d 131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered September 7, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the plaintiff, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant demonstrated a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It was then incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate an issue of fact with regard to whether he had suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Upon our review of the plaintiff’s papers, we conclude that he has failed to demonstrate such an issue of fact (see, DuMont v Sandhir, 201 AD2d 450; Craft v Brantuk, 195 AD2d 438; Oswald v Ospina, 187 AD2d 570; Georgia v Ramautar, 180 AD2d 713; Forte v Vaccaro, 175 AD2d 153). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered September 7, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the plaintiff, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant demonstrated a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It was then incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate an issue of fact with regard to whether he had suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Upon our review of the plaintiff’s papers, we conclude that he has failed to demonstrate such an issue of fact (see, DuMont v Sandhir, 201 AD2d 450; Craft v Brantuk, 195 AD2d 438; Oswald v Ospina, 187 AD2d 570; Georgia v Ramautar, 180 AD2d 713; Forte v Vaccaro, 175 AD2d 153). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 557, 623 N.Y.S.2d 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abate-v-kahrimanian-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack