Dron v. Beitscher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dron v. Beitscher

269 A.D.2d 557, 703 N.Y.S.2d 752, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2115

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2000·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated February 5, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained [558] a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Belmonte v Collins, 261 AD2d 496; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated February 5, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained [558] a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Belmonte v Collins, 261 AD2d 496; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Dron v. Beitscher, 269 A.D.2d 557, 703 N.Y.S.2d 752, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 557 (Dron v. Beitscher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related