Lorenzo v. Witt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lorenzo v. Witt

118 A.D.2d 628, 499 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54488

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 628 (Lorenzo v. Witt) 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. Witt, 118 A.D.2d 628, 499 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), dated June 14, 1984, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and action dismissed.

The proof submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5104 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Hezekiah v Williams, 81 AD2d 261). Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, De Filippo v White, 101 AD2d 801). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), dated June 14, 1984, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and action dismissed.

The proof submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5104 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Hezekiah v Williams, 81 AD2d 261). Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, De Filippo v White, 101 AD2d 801). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 628, 499 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorenzo-v-witt-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack