Colinares v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colinares v. Washington

269 A.D.2d 350, 702 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1270

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated February 22, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Berlinda Colinares did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[351] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Loiseau v Maxwell, 256 AD2d 450; Edwards v De Haven, 155 AD2d 757; Post v Broderick, 104 AD2d 977). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated February 22, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Berlinda Colinares did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

[351] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Loiseau v Maxwell, 256 AD2d 450; Edwards v De Haven, 155 AD2d 757; Post v Broderick, 104 AD2d 977). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Colinares v. Washington, 269 A.D.2d 350, 702 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 350 (Colinares v. Washington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related