Lauria v. Su-Dau Yang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lauria v. Su-Dau Yang

283 A.D.2d 612, 725 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 612 (Lauria v. Su-Dau Yang) 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

Lauria v. Su-Dau Yang, 283 A.D.2d 612, 725 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 10, 2000, which granted the defendant’s 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.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted to the defendant (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 10, 2000, which granted the defendant’s 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.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted to the defendant (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 612, 725 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lauria-v-su-dau-yang-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack