Lubrano v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lubrano v. Brown

251 A.D.2d 383, 672 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 383 (Lubrano v. Brown) 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

Lubrano v. Brown, 251 A.D.2d 383, 672 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated June 25, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant’s motion papers failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that the plaintiff’s alleged hearing loss was not causally related to the subject accident (see, Minori v Hernandez Trucking Co., 239 AD2d 322; see also, Feuerman v Achtar, 246 AD2d 577; Fouad v Riser, 246 AD2d 508). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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 so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated June 25, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant’s motion papers failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that the plaintiff’s alleged hearing loss was not causally related to the subject accident (see, Minori v Hernandez Trucking Co., 239 AD2d 322; see also, Feuerman v Achtar, 246 AD2d 577; Fouad v Riser, 246 AD2d 508). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 383, 672 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubrano-v-brown-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack