Healy v. Delaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Healy v. Delaney

234 A.D.2d 343, 651 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12895

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 343 (Healy v. Delaney) 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

Healy v. Delaney, 234 A.D.2d 343, 651 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered November 16, 1995, which, upon an order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant moved for summary judgment contending that the plaintiff did not suffer a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injuries were not serious (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; cf., Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). The record indicates that the plaintiff’s opposition papers were insufficient to raise a question of fact as to this issue (see, Wilkins v Cameron, 214 AD2d 557; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774, 775). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Gold-stein and Luciano, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered November 16, 1995, which, upon an order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant moved for summary judgment contending that the plaintiff did not suffer a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injuries were not serious (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; cf., Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). The record indicates that the plaintiff’s opposition papers were insufficient to raise a question of fact as to this issue (see, Wilkins v Cameron, 214 AD2d 557; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774, 775). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Gold-stein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 343, 651 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/healy-v-delaney-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack