Baptiste v. Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baptiste v. Shapiro

190 A.D.2d 770, 594 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1431

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 770 (Baptiste v. Shapiro) 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

Baptiste v. Shapiro, 190 A.D.2d 770, 594 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated November 28, 1990, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on liability, and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs injuries did not constitute "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of fault while simultaneously finding that a question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff sustained "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated November 28, 1990, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on liability, and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs injuries did not constitute "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of fault while simultaneously finding that a question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff sustained "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see generally, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 770, 594 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baptiste-v-shapiro-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack