Hensen v. Marrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hensen v. Marrow

269 A.D.2d 425, 702 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1396

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 425 (Hensen v. Marrow) 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

Hensen v. Marrow, 269 A.D.2d 425, 702 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [426]*426for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 26, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff came forward with sufficient admissible evidence to create an issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Pietrocola v Battibulli, 238 AD2d 864). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages [426]*426for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 26, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff came forward with sufficient admissible evidence to create an issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Pietrocola v Battibulli, 238 AD2d 864). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 425, 702 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hensen-v-marrow-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack