Henao v. Ting Sal Ping

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henao v. Ting Sal Ping

257 A.D.2d 604, 683 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 334

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 604 (Henao v. Ting Sal Ping) 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

Henao v. Ting Sal Ping, 257 A.D.2d 604, 683 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated January 29, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Natalie Henao and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[605]*605The defendant’s submissions demonstrated that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Natalie Henao were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Curro v Fernandez, 232 AD2d 520; Doria v Buchstein, 227 AD2d 438). However, triable issues of fact exist with respect to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Armando Henao (see, Pena v Orlando, 239 AD2d 326). Miller, J. P., Thompson, McGinity 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated January 29, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Natalie Henao and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[605]*605The defendant’s submissions demonstrated that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Natalie Henao were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Curro v Fernandez, 232 AD2d 520; Doria v Buchstein, 227 AD2d 438). However, triable issues of fact exist with respect to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Armando Henao (see, Pena v Orlando, 239 AD2d 326). Miller, J. P., Thompson, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 604, 683 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henao-v-ting-sal-ping-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack