Lizzi v. Siegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lizzi v. Siegel

283 A.D.2d 613, 725 N.Y.S.2d 230, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5512

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 613 (Lizzi v. Siegel) 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

Lizzi v. Siegel, 283 A.D.2d 613, 725 N.Y.S.2d 230, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Wayne E. Barca and Josephine Barca appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated September 12, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants submitted proof in admissible form demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In [614]*614opposition, the plaintiffs evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Steuer v DiDonna, 233 AD2d 494). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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 defendants Wayne E. Barca and Josephine Barca appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated September 12, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants submitted proof in admissible form demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In [614]*614opposition, the plaintiffs evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Steuer v DiDonna, 233 AD2d 494). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 613, 725 N.Y.S.2d 230, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lizzi-v-siegel-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack