Martinez v. Ullah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Ullah

54 A.D.3d 1007, 863 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.3d 1007 (Martinez v. Ullah) 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

Martinez v. Ullah, 54 A.D.3d 1007, 863 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Shahid Ullah appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County [1008]*1008(Dabiri, J.), dated October 26, 2007, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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 Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment since there are questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Marques v Conlon, 302 AD2d 566 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P, Santucci, Miller, Dickerson and Eng, 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 Shahid Ullah appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County [1008]*1008(Dabiri, J.), dated October 26, 2007, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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 Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment since there are questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Marques v Conlon, 302 AD2d 566 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P, Santucci, Miller, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 1007, 863 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-ullah-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack