Hoffer v. Silich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffer v. Silich

1 A.D.2d 317, 766 N.Y.S.2d 581

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 317 (Hoffer v. Silich) 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

Hoffer v. Silich, 1 A.D.2d 317, 766 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Debra Hoffer appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated December 16, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by her on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff Debra Hoffer failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ initial showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by her (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]; Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Florio, J.E, Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, 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 Debra Hoffer appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated December 16, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by her on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff Debra Hoffer failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ initial showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by her (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]; Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Florio, J.E, Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 317, 766 N.Y.S.2d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffer-v-silich-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack