Catapano v. Hitchings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catapano v. Hitchings

279 A.D.2d 598, 719 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 598 (Catapano v. Hitchings) 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

Catapano v. Hitchings, 279 A.D.2d 598, 719 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 22, 2000, as, upon re argument, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, upon reargument, the motion for summary judgment is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court, upon reargument, improperly granted [599]*599the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion was insufficient to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Raso v Statewide Auto Auction, 262 AD2d 387; Pietrocola v Battibulli, 238 AD2d 864; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519). 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 appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 22, 2000, as, upon re argument, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, upon reargument, the motion for summary judgment is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court, upon reargument, improperly granted [599]*599the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion was insufficient to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Raso v Statewide Auto Auction, 262 AD2d 387; Pietrocola v Battibulli, 238 AD2d 864; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 598, 719 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catapano-v-hitchings-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack