Cholakis v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cholakis v. New York City Transit Authority

253 A.D.2d 478, 676 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8897

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

DecidedAugust 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 478 (Cholakis v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Cholakis v. New York City Transit Authority, 253 A.D.2d 478, 676 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 10, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The medical evidence submitted by the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case 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, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 10, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The medical evidence submitted by the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case 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, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 478, 676 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cholakis-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack