Mulvey v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mulvey v. Berman

271 A.D.2d 587, 707 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315

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

DecidedApril 17, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 587 (Mulvey v. Berman) 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

Mulvey v. Berman, 271 A.D.2d 587, 707 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated May 28, 1999, which denied their 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence in the form of a chiropractor’s affidavit to create a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Outcalt v Jianxin Wang, 269 AD2d 435; Moreno v Delcid, 262 AD2d 464). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated May 28, 1999, which denied their 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).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence in the form of a chiropractor’s affidavit to create a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Outcalt v Jianxin Wang, 269 AD2d 435; Moreno v Delcid, 262 AD2d 464). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 587, 707 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulvey-v-berman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack