Lopez v. Klauber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lopez v. Klauber

280 A.D.2d 525, 720 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1517

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 525 (Lopez v. Klauber) 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

Lopez v. Klauber, 280 A.D.2d 525, 720 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1517 (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, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated April 15, 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.

The plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to rebut the defendant’s initial showing that he 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). 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated April 15, 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.

The plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to rebut the defendant’s initial showing that he 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). Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 525, 720 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-klauber-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack