McLaughlin v. Vanhouten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McLaughlin v. Vanhouten

283 A.D.2d 407, 723 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4733

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 407 (McLaughlin v. Vanhouten) 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

McLaughlin v. Vanhouten, 283 A.D.2d 407, 723 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 31, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for renewal and, upon renewal, in effect, vacated a prior order of the same court, dated April 19, 2000, granting the defendant’s 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), and denied that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for renewal (see, Matter of PKS Dev. Co. v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., 187 AD2d 656). Further, there is a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly denied to the defendant (see, Kominik v Rodriguez, 273 AD2d 358). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 31, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for renewal and, upon renewal, in effect, vacated a prior order of the same court, dated April 19, 2000, granting the defendant’s 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), and denied that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for renewal (see, Matter of PKS Dev. Co. v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., 187 AD2d 656). Further, there is a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly denied to the defendant (see, Kominik v Rodriguez, 273 AD2d 358). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 407, 723 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-vanhouten-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack