Abrosikov v. Colonel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrosikov v. Colonel

289 A.D.2d 271, 734 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12025

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 271 (Abrosikov v. Colonel) 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

Abrosikov v. Colonel, 289 A.D.2d 271, 734 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 26, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants established prima facie their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Solomon v Val Leasing Co., 282 AD2d 519). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 26, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants established prima facie their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Solomon v Val Leasing Co., 282 AD2d 519). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 271, 734 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrosikov-v-colonel-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack