Haak v. Ponsolle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haak v. Ponsolle

256 A.D.2d 381, 682 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13411

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 381 (Haak v. Ponsolle) 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

Haak v. Ponsolle, 256 A.D.2d 381, 682 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated September 5, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[382]*382Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met the burden of coming forward with evidence that the plaintiffs had not suffered serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated September 5, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[382]*382Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met the burden of coming forward with evidence that the plaintiffs had not suffered serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 381, 682 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haak-v-ponsolle-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack