Dicker v. Daley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dicker v. Daley

294 A.D.2d 328, 741 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4758

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

DecidedMay 6, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 328 (Dicker v. Daley) 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

Dicker v. Daley, 294 A.D.2d 328, 741 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

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 (D’Emilio, J.), dated August 3, 2000, as granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the complaint on the ground that the [329]*329plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendant established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, 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 (D’Emilio, J.), dated August 3, 2000, as granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the complaint on the ground that the [329]*329plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The defendant established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 328, 741 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicker-v-daley-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack