Alexander v. Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. Rogers

280 A.D.2d 624, 720 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2500

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 624 (Alexander v. Rogers) 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

Alexander v. Rogers, 280 A.D.2d 624, 720 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2500 (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, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated April 10, 2000, 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 affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted to the defendants (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, 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, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated April 10, 2000, 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 affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted to the defendants (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 624, 720 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-rogers-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack