Loud v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loud v. Hirsch

299 A.D.2d 459, 749 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 459 (Loud v. Hirsch) 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

Loud v. Hirsch, 299 A.D.2d 459, 749 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), entered November I, 2001, which denied her 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 defendant failed to establish, prima facie, her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Shin v Torres, 295 AD2d 495; Hussein v Littman, 287 AD2d 543). The defendant did not establish that the plaintiffs injury was not causally related to the subject accident, or that it was not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345). Santucci, J. P., Smith, Goldstein, H. Miller and Mastro, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), entered November I, 2001, which denied her 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 defendant failed to establish, prima facie, her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Shin v Torres, 295 AD2d 495; Hussein v Littman, 287 AD2d 543). The defendant did not establish that the plaintiffs injury was not causally related to the subject accident, or that it was not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345). Santucci, J. P., Smith, Goldstein, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 459, 749 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loud-v-hirsch-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack