Marotta v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marotta v. Williams

206 A.D.2d 656, 614 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7387

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 656 (Marotta v. Williams) 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

Marotta v. Williams, 206 A.D.2d 656, 614 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cardona, J.), entered August 12, 1993 in Albany County, which denied defendant Ruth A. Williams’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her.

In this personal injury action stemming from a January 6, 1988 motor vehicle accident, Supreme Court denied a motion for summary judgment by defendant Ruth A. Williams on the ground that plaintiff has not suffered a "serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In our view, this ruling [657]*657was correct. The medical evidence indicating objective injury submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the summary judgment motion sufficiently raised questions as to the degree and permanency of his injuries so as to justify the denial of the motion.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cardona, J.), entered August 12, 1993 in Albany County, which denied defendant Ruth A. Williams’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her.

In this personal injury action stemming from a January 6, 1988 motor vehicle accident, Supreme Court denied a motion for summary judgment by defendant Ruth A. Williams on the ground that plaintiff has not suffered a "serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In our view, this ruling [657]*657was correct. The medical evidence indicating objective injury submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the summary judgment motion sufficiently raised questions as to the degree and permanency of his injuries so as to justify the denial of the motion.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 656, 614 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marotta-v-williams-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack