Adames v. Aponte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adames v. Aponte

281 A.D.2d 502, 721 N.Y.S.2d 796, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 502 (Adames v. Aponte) 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

Adames v. Aponte, 281 A.D.2d 502, 721 N.Y.S.2d 796, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 11, 2000, which denied his 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 affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system as a result of the subject accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Tsivikas v Budget Rent A Car Sys., 278 AD2d 405; McMonagle v Independent Coach Corp., 276 AD2d 678; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 11, 2000, which denied his 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 affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system as a result of the subject accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Tsivikas v Budget Rent A Car Sys., 278 AD2d 405; McMonagle v Independent Coach Corp., 276 AD2d 678; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 502, 721 N.Y.S.2d 796, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adames-v-aponte-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack