Murphy v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Kaplan

288 A.D.2d 361, 733 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11275

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 361 (Murphy v. Kaplan) 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

Murphy v. Kaplan, 288 A.D.2d 361, 733 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated December 21, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplain v Taylor, supra, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, supra). In any event, we find that the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Kraemer v Henning, 237 AD2d 492; cf, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated December 21, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplain v Taylor, supra, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, supra). In any event, we find that the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Kraemer v Henning, 237 AD2d 492; cf, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 361, 733 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack