Goldberg v. Cortes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Cortes

240 A.D.2d 468, 659 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6119

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

DecidedJune 9, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 468 (Goldberg v. Cortes) 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

Goldberg v. Cortes, 240 A.D.2d 468, 659 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Chris Solimine and Firematic Supply Co., Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 1, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiff’s failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s submissions created issues of fact for a jury to determine (see, Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605; Morsellino v Frankel, 161 AD2d 748). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, 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 defendants Chris Solimine and Firematic Supply Co., Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 1, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiff’s failure to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s submissions created issues of fact for a jury to determine (see, Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605; Morsellino v Frankel, 161 AD2d 748). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 468, 659 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-cortes-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack