Lorenzo v. Mass, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lorenzo v. Mass, Inc.

287 A.D.2d 602, 731 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9833

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 602 (Lorenzo v. Mass, Inc.) 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

Lorenzo v. Mass, Inc., 287 A.D.2d 602, 731 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Mass, Inc., ap[603]*603peals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 2, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it 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 appellant submitted proof in admissible form demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 83-84). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Grossman v Wright, supra; Boehm v Estate of Mack, 255 AD2d 749). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, 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 Mass, Inc., ap[603]*603peals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 2, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it 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 appellant submitted proof in admissible form demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79, 83-84). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Grossman v Wright, supra; Boehm v Estate of Mack, 255 AD2d 749). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 602, 731 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorenzo-v-mass-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack