Fasulo v. Jacobs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fasulo v. Jacobs

247 A.D.2d 427, 667 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1036

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 427 (Fasulo v. Jacobs) 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

Fasulo v. Jacobs, 247 A.D.2d 427, 667 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 15, 1996, as, upon renewal, 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 15, 1996, as, upon renewal, 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 427, 667 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fasulo-v-jacobs-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack