Khanin v. Cohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khanin v. Cohan

294 A.D.2d 542, 742 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5524

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

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 542 (Khanin v. Cohan) 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

Khanin v. Cohan, 294 A.D.2d 542, 742 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), entered May 21, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of them sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

[543]*543Assuming that the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955), the plaintiffs’ opposition papers were sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Kim v Cohen, 208 AD2d 807; cf. Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 84). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), entered May 21, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of them sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

[543]*543Assuming that the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955), the plaintiffs’ opposition papers were sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Kim v Cohen, 208 AD2d 807; cf. Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 84). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 542, 742 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khanin-v-cohan-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack