Catatini v. Novkovic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catatini v. Novkovic

234 A.D.2d 252, 651 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12739

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 252 (Catatini v. Novkovic) 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

Catatini v. Novkovic, 234 A.D.2d 252, 651 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 14,1995, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff succeeded in demonstrating, in an affirmation of Dr. Alan Genicoff, the existence of a material issue of fact as to whether he suffered a "serious injury” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see generally, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; DeAngelo v Fidel Corp. Servs., 171 AD2d 588; Tatro v Ende, 177 AD2d 691). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 14,1995, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff succeeded in demonstrating, in an affirmation of Dr. Alan Genicoff, the existence of a material issue of fact as to whether he suffered a "serious injury” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see generally, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; DeAngelo v Fidel Corp. Servs., 171 AD2d 588; Tatro v Ende, 177 AD2d 691). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 252, 651 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catatini-v-novkovic-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack