Munoz v. Garay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munoz v. Garay

238 A.D.2d 555, 657 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4412

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

DecidedApril 28, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 555 (Munoz v. Garay) 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

Munoz v. Garay, 238 A.D.2d 555, 657 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated February 23,1996, which granted the defendant’s 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, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant submitted admissible evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and that the plaintiff failed to come forward with competent evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Campbell v Finke, 187 AD2d 780; Georgia v Ramautar, 180 AD2d 713; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774; Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated February 23,1996, which granted the defendant’s 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, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant submitted admissible evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and that the plaintiff failed to come forward with competent evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Campbell v Finke, 187 AD2d 780; Georgia v Ramautar, 180 AD2d 713; Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774; Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 555, 657 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-garay-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack