Jenkins v. Kenny Trucking

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. Kenny Trucking

240 A.D.2d 709, 660 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7145

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

DecidedJune 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 709 (Jenkins v. Kenny Trucking) 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

Jenkins v. Kenny Trucking, 240 A.D.2d 709, 660 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Salem Truck Leasing and Biston Menachem appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated October 31, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that 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, Puma v Player, 233 AD2d 308; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605; Spezia v De Marco, 173 AD2d 462). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 defendants Salem Truck Leasing and Biston Menachem appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated October 31, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that 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, Puma v Player, 233 AD2d 308; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605; Spezia v De Marco, 173 AD2d 462). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 709, 660 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-kenny-trucking-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack