Moore v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Williams

309 A.D.2d 738, 765 N.Y.S.2d 264

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 738 (Moore v. Williams) 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

Moore v. Williams, 309 A.D.2d 738, 765 N.Y.S.2d 264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from [739]*739an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated August 28, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Ritchie A. Williams 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.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the initial showing by the defendant Ritchie A. Williams that the appellant did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to Williams dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]; Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, 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 plaintiff appeals from [739]*739an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated August 28, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Ritchie A. Williams 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.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the initial showing by the defendant Ritchie A. Williams that the appellant did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to Williams dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]; Amato v Psaltakis, 279 AD2d 439 [2001]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 738, 765 N.Y.S.2d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-williams-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack