Myles v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Myles v. New York City Transit Authority

265 A.D.2d 392, 696 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10227

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 392 (Myles v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Myles v. New York City Transit Authority, 265 A.D.2d 392, 696 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) the defendants Brooklyn Union Gas Company and Kevin J. Ruff appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered June 23, 1998, as denied their [393]*393motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and (2) the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Albert Rodriguez cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there are issues of fact with respect to whether the injured plaintiff suffered a serious injury withing the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, e.g., Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; McVey v Collins, 262 AD2d 462). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Mc-Ginity, 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., (1) the defendants Brooklyn Union Gas Company and Kevin J. Ruff appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered June 23, 1998, as denied their [393]*393motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and (2) the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Albert Rodriguez cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there are issues of fact with respect to whether the injured plaintiff suffered a serious injury withing the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, e.g., Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; McVey v Collins, 262 AD2d 462). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 392, 696 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myles-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack