Minuta v. Miron Lumber Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minuta v. Miron Lumber Co.

203 A.D.2d 541, 612 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320

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

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 541 (Minuta v. Miron Lumber Co.) 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

Minuta v. Miron Lumber Co., 203 A.D.2d 541, 612 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 15, 1992, which, upon reargument, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is a question of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, the court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Petrone v Thornton, 166 AD2d 513). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 15, 1992, which, upon reargument, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is a question of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, the court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Petrone v Thornton, 166 AD2d 513). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 541, 612 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minuta-v-miron-lumber-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack