Koumoulis v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koumoulis v. Miller

304 A.D.2d 531, 756 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedApril 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 531 (Koumoulis v. Miller) 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

Koumoulis v. Miller, 304 A.D.2d 531, 756 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated May 29, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ initial showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants, dismissing the complaint (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Mastro, 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, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated May 29, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ initial showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants, dismissing the complaint (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 531, 756 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koumoulis-v-miller-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack