George v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

George v. Thompson

298 A.D.2d 492, 748 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9959

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 492 (George v. Thompson) 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

George v. Thompson, 298 A.D.2d 492, 748 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover dam[493]*493ages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered April 30, 2001, which denied their 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.

The defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether or not she sustained such an injury (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957); on this record, she has done so. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover dam[493]*493ages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered April 30, 2001, which denied their 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.

The defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus it was incumbent on the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether or not she sustained such an injury (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957); on this record, she has done so. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 492, 748 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-thompson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack