Beck v. Black

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beck v. Black

295 A.D.2d 294, 742 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5742

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 294 (Beck v. Black) 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

Beck v. Black, 295 A.D.2d 294, 742 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [295]*295for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated August 3, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Phyllis A. Beck did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s initial showing that the allegedly injured plaintiff, Phyllis A. Beck, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439). Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, 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 [295]*295for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated August 3, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Phyllis A. Beck did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s initial showing that the allegedly injured plaintiff, Phyllis A. Beck, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439). Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 294, 742 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-black-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack