Helmbrecht v. Krauthamer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Helmbrecht v. Krauthamer

239 A.D.2d 316, 657 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4620

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 316 (Helmbrecht v. Krauthamer) 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

Helmbrecht v. Krauthamer, 239 A.D.2d 316, 657 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 20, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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’s conclusion that the defendant established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that the plaintiff did not sustain serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Nicosia v Straberg, 236 AD2d 595; Locasio v Astoria-Bus Co., 236 AD2d 447). The evidence adduced by the plaintiff in opposition failed to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing (see, Williams v Toshiko, 237 AD2d 350; Nicosia v Straberg, supra). Therefore, the court correctly awarded summary judgment to the defendants. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 20, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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’s conclusion that the defendant established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that the plaintiff did not sustain serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Nicosia v Straberg, 236 AD2d 595; Locasio v Astoria-Bus Co., 236 AD2d 447). The evidence adduced by the plaintiff in opposition failed to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing (see, Williams v Toshiko, 237 AD2d 350; Nicosia v Straberg, supra). Therefore, the court correctly awarded summary judgment to the defendants. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 316, 657 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helmbrecht-v-krauthamer-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack