Kofman v. Keller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kofman v. Keller

15 A.D.3d 546, 791 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1814

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 546 (Kofman v. Keller) 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

Kofman v. Keller, 15 A.D.3d 546, 791 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Robin Rivers Keller appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 9, 2004, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). Specifically, the plaintiffs medical records submitted by the appellant in support of her motion raised issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident. [547]*547Prudenti, PJ., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, 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 Robin Rivers Keller appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 9, 2004, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). Specifically, the plaintiffs medical records submitted by the appellant in support of her motion raised issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident. [547]*547Prudenti, PJ., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 546, 791 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kofman-v-keller-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack