McManus v. Gembs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McManus v. Gembs

282 A.D.2d 723, 724 N.Y.S.2d 330, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4291

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 723 (McManus v. Gembs) 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

McManus v. Gembs, 282 A.D.2d 723, 724 N.Y.S.2d 330, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated May 5, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Loretta McManus did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s initial showing that the plaintiff Loretta McManus did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant dismissing the complaint (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated May 5, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Loretta McManus did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendant’s initial showing that the plaintiff Loretta McManus did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant dismissing the complaint (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 723, 724 N.Y.S.2d 330, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmanus-v-gembs-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack