Klapper v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klapper v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

127 A.D.2d 566, 511 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43035

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 566 (Klapper v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority) 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

Klapper v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, 127 A.D.2d 566, 511 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated October 1, 1985, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

It is well settled that the question of whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of "serious injury” rests with the court in the first instance (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Hezekiah v Williams, 81 AD2d 261). We find that the conclusory allegations set forth in the affidavit of the plaintiff’s physician are, without more, insufficient as a matter of law to establish "serious injury” and the defendant, therefore, is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Popp v Kremer, 124 AD2d 720; Padron v Hood, 124 AD2d 718; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated October 1, 1985, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

It is well settled that the question of whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of "serious injury” rests with the court in the first instance (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Hezekiah v Williams, 81 AD2d 261). We find that the conclusory allegations set forth in the affidavit of the plaintiff’s physician are, without more, insufficient as a matter of law to establish "serious injury” and the defendant, therefore, is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Popp v Kremer, 124 AD2d 720; Padron v Hood, 124 AD2d 718; Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 566, 511 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klapper-v-metropolitan-suburban-bus-authority-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack