Cutting v. Najib

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cutting v. Najib

292 A.D.2d 563, 739 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3177

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 563 (Cutting v. Najib) 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

Cutting v. Najib, 292 A.D.2d 563, 739 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 31, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ initial showing that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439). Thus, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted to the defendants (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 31, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ initial showing that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439). Thus, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted to the defendants (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 563, 739 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutting-v-najib-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack