Gatto v. Boyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gatto v. Boyd

123 A.D.2d 739, 507 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60883

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 739 (Gatto v. Boyd) 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

Gatto v. Boyd, 123 A.D.2d 739, 507 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated December 18, 1985, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The information contained in the affidavits submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the instant motion for summary judgment raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained "serious injuries” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Fiber and Spatt, 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 resulting from an automobile collision, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated December 18, 1985, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The information contained in the affidavits submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the instant motion for summary judgment raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained "serious injuries” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 739, 507 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatto-v-boyd-nyappdiv-1986.