Hoek v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoek v. King

293 A.D.2d 512, 739 N.Y.S.2d 828, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3493

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

DecidedApril 8, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 512 (Hoek v. King) 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

Hoek v. King, 293 A.D.2d 512, 739 N.Y.S.2d 828, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated January 19, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff [513]*513did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of the 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 showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Burgwin v Langmaack, 224 AD2d 569; cf. Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, 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 (Seidell, J.), dated January 19, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff [513]*513did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of the 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 showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Burgwin v Langmaack, 224 AD2d 569; cf. Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 512, 739 N.Y.S.2d 828, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoek-v-king-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack