Merlis v. Lupo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merlis v. Lupo

108 A.D.2d 902, 485 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43235

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 108 A.D.2d 902 (Merlis v. Lupo) 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

Merlis v. Lupo, 108 A.D.2d 902, 485 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages, inter alia, for a “serious injury” pursuant to Insurance [903]*903Law § 5102 (d) (formerly § 671 [4]), defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated July 11, 1983, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment (Waldron v Wild, 96 AD2d 190), we conclude that plaintiff’s claim of “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) presents a question of fact to be resolved by a jury (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages, inter alia, for a “serious injury” pursuant to Insurance [903]*903Law § 5102 (d) (formerly § 671 [4]), defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated July 11, 1983, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment (Waldron v Wild, 96 AD2d 190), we conclude that plaintiff’s claim of “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) presents a question of fact to be resolved by a jury (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 902, 485 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merlis-v-lupo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack