Kahn v. Ramsarran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kahn v. Ramsarran

286 A.D.2d 752, 730 N.Y.S.2d 727, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8701

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 752 (Kahn v. Ramsarran) 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. Ramsarran, 286 A.D.2d 752, 730 N.Y.S.2d 727, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated September 26, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff 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 defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as they demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Ryan v Xuda, 243 AD2d 457; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assocs., 239 AD2d 394; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266; Marshall v Albano, 182 AD2d 614; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated September 26, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff 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 defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as they demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834; Ryan v Xuda, 243 AD2d 457; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assocs., 239 AD2d 394; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266; Marshall v Albano, 182 AD2d 614; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 752, 730 N.Y.S.2d 727, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahn-v-ramsarran-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack