DeRuiter v. Moskover

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeRuiter v. Moskover

275 A.D.2d 341, 712 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8685

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

DecidedAugust 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 341 (DeRuiter v. Moskover) 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

DeRuiter v. Moskover, 275 A.D.2d 341, 712 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 16, 1999, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Karen DeRuiter did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff Karen DeRuiter sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs failed to establish that her injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident (see, La Rue v Tucker, 247 AD2d 702). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 16, 1999, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Karen DeRuiter did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff Karen DeRuiter sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs failed to establish that her injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident (see, La Rue v Tucker, 247 AD2d 702). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 341, 712 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deruiter-v-moskover-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack