Gonzalez v. Max

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Max

286 A.D.2d 750, 730 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 750 (Gonzalez v. Max) 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

Gonzalez v. Max, 286 A.D.2d 750, 730 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 17, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 17, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 750, 730 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-max-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack