Kutler v. Jowers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kutler v. Jowers

280 A.D.2d 585, 720 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1635

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 585 (Kutler v. Jowers) 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

Kutler v. Jowers, 280 A.D.2d 585, 720 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated June 8, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 defendant’s motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiffs injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated June 8, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 defendant’s motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiffs injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 585, 720 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kutler-v-jowers-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack