Cash v. Grayson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cash v. Grayson

262 A.D.2d 517, 691 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 517 (Cash v. Grayson) 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

Cash v. Grayson, 262 A.D.2d 517, 691 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Action Staple and Supply, Inc., appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 27, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that it failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman 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 defendant Action Staple and Supply, Inc., appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 27, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that it failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 517, 691 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cash-v-grayson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack