Dabbs v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dabbs v. Kelly

245 A.D.2d 482, 666 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13263

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 482 (Dabbs v. Kelly) 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

Dabbs v. Kelly, 245 A.D.2d 482, 666 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated June 16, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the respondents’ affirmative defense that he had not sustained a “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss the respondents’ affirmative defense that the plaintiff had not sustained a “serious [483]*483injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish a prima facie case that the underlying collision was a proximate cause of the fracture which he suffered (see, Elter v Ritvo, 228 AD2d 410; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated June 16, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the respondents’ affirmative defense that he had not sustained a “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss the respondents’ affirmative defense that the plaintiff had not sustained a “serious [483]*483injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish a prima facie case that the underlying collision was a proximate cause of the fracture which he suffered (see, Elter v Ritvo, 228 AD2d 410; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 482, 666 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dabbs-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack