Crouch v. Dewan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crouch v. Dewan

270 A.D.2d 223, 704 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2529

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 223 (Crouch v. Dewan) 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

Crouch v. Dewan, 270 A.D.2d 223, 704 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated April 14, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[224]*224The affirmed reports of neurosurgeon Dr. Kenneth Gang, submitted by the defendant in support of his motion, established a prima facie case that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs’ opposition, including the affidavits of chiropractor Dr. Joel Kaplan, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated April 14, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[224]*224The affirmed reports of neurosurgeon Dr. Kenneth Gang, submitted by the defendant in support of his motion, established a prima facie case that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs’ opposition, including the affidavits of chiropractor Dr. Joel Kaplan, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 223, 704 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crouch-v-dewan-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack