Balanta v. Stanlaine Taxi Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Balanta v. Stanlaine Taxi Corp.

283 A.D.2d 447, 724 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4995

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 447 (Balanta v. Stanlaine Taxi Corp.) 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

Balanta v. Stanlaine Taxi Corp., 283 A.D.2d 447, 724 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff counterclaim-defendant Doris Balanta appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated April 18, 2000, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Elaine Freire on the ground that she [448]*448did 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 motion of the plaintiff counterclaim-defendant for summary judgment, the plaintiff Elaine Freire came forward with sufficient admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (cf., Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Summary judgment was thus properly denied. 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 counterclaim-defendant Doris Balanta appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated April 18, 2000, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Elaine Freire on the ground that she [448]*448did 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 motion of the plaintiff counterclaim-defendant for summary judgment, the plaintiff Elaine Freire came forward with sufficient admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (cf., Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Summary judgment was thus properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 447, 724 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balanta-v-stanlaine-taxi-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack