Drenckhahn v. Simmons

172 A.D.2d 1080

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1080 (Drenckhahn v. Simmons) 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
Drenckhahn v. Simmons, 172 A.D.2d 1080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In moving for summary judgment, defendants failed to negate the existence of a factual issue whether the injury or impairment prevented plaintiff from performing substantially all of his usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Summary judgment was, therefore, properly denied (cf., Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Queens County, Hentel, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 A.D.2d 1080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drenckhahn-v-simmons-nyappdiv-1991.