Coward v. Thornton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coward v. Thornton

283 A.D.2d 603, 725 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5508

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 603 (Coward v. Thornton) 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

Coward v. Thornton, 283 A.D.2d 603, 725 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Henry C. Thornton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 5, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion as he failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757; Boehm v Estate of Mack, 255 AD2d 749). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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 defendant Henry C. Thornton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 5, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion as he failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757; Boehm v Estate of Mack, 255 AD2d 749). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 603, 725 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coward-v-thornton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack