Cruz v. Brite Office Cleaning Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. Brite Office Cleaning Corp.

284 A.D.2d 366, 725 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6039

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 366 (Cruz v. Brite Office Cleaning Corp.) 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

Cruz v. Brite Office Cleaning Corp., 284 A.D.2d 366, 725 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated December 16, 1999, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants, on their cross motion for summary judgment, established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the plaintiff did not oppose the cross motion (see, Schwartz v Dumbrowsky, 282 AD2d 597). Moreover, the plaintiff’s contentions as to the reason for her failure to oppose the defendants’ cross motion are dehors the record and cannot be considered on the appeal. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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 defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated December 16, 1999, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants, on their cross motion for summary judgment, established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the plaintiff did not oppose the cross motion (see, Schwartz v Dumbrowsky, 282 AD2d 597). Moreover, the plaintiff’s contentions as to the reason for her failure to oppose the defendants’ cross motion are dehors the record and cannot be considered on the appeal. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 366, 725 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-brite-office-cleaning-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack