Kahn v. Dominques

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kahn v. Dominques

288 A.D.2d 349, 734 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11276

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 349 (Kahn v. Dominques) 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

Kahn v. Dominques, 288 A.D.2d 349, 734 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated January 9, 2001, as granted the motion of the defendants Jose A. Dominques and Swede Farm for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment as they submitted admissible evidence demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to come forward with competent evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365; Lobo v Singh, 259 AD2d 523; Noble v Ackerman, 252 AD2d 392, 394). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated January 9, 2001, as granted the motion of the defendants Jose A. Dominques and Swede Farm for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment as they submitted admissible evidence demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to come forward with competent evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Guzman v Michael Mgt., 266 AD2d 508; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365; Lobo v Singh, 259 AD2d 523; Noble v Ackerman, 252 AD2d 392, 394). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 349, 734 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahn-v-dominques-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack