Kay v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kay v. Goldberg

199 A.D.2d 468, 608 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12325

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 468 (Kay v. Goldberg) 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

Kay v. Goldberg, 199 A.D.2d 468, 608 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered May 2, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs did not make a prima facie showing of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered May 2, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs did not make a prima facie showing of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 468, 608 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kay-v-goldberg-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack