Holland v. Caballero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holland v. Caballero

233 A.D.2d 481, 650 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12689

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 481 (Holland v. Caballero) 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

Holland v. Caballero, 233 A.D.2d 481, 650 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated December 19, 1995, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that an issue of fact exists as to whether the injured plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Roeg, 212 AD2d 756; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605; see also, Brown v Stark, 205 AD2d 725). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated December 19, 1995, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that an issue of fact exists as to whether the injured plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Roeg, 212 AD2d 756; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605; see also, Brown v Stark, 205 AD2d 725). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 481, 650 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-caballero-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack