Lopez v. Nandan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lopez v. Nandan

304 A.D.2d 724, 757 N.Y.S.2d 782

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

DecidedApril 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 724 (Lopez v. Nandan) 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. Nandan, 304 A.D.2d 724, 757 N.Y.S.2d 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover [725]*725damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Kumar M. Nandan and Samsoodeen Nandan appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated August 22, 2002, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Murphy v Kaplan, 288 AD2d 361 [2001]; Morales v New York City Tr. Auth., 287 AD2d 604 [2001]). Altman, J.P., Smith, Adams 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 [725]*725damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Kumar M. Nandan and Samsoodeen Nandan appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated August 22, 2002, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Murphy v Kaplan, 288 AD2d 361 [2001]; Morales v New York City Tr. Auth., 287 AD2d 604 [2001]). Altman, J.P., Smith, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 724, 757 N.Y.S.2d 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-nandan-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack