Canales v. Werner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canales v. Werner

289 A.D.2d 360, 734 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12193

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 360 (Canales v. Werner) 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

Canales v. Werner, 289 A.D.2d 360, 734 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Margarita Werner and Henry Monroy Pabon appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered March 27, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them 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 insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion, as they failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Polizzi v Won Jun Choi, 264 AD2d 830). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, 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 defendants Margarita Werner and Henry Monroy Pabon appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered March 27, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them 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 insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion, as they failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Polizzi v Won Jun Choi, 264 AD2d 830). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 360, 734 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canales-v-werner-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack