Naiman-Michaels v. Fisk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naiman-Michaels v. Fisk

265 A.D.2d 463, 696 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10440

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 463 (Naiman-Michaels v. Fisk) 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

Naiman-Michaels v. Fisk, 265 A.D.2d 463, 696 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated December 7, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did [464]*464not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). However, the plaintiff’s evidence submitted in opposition to the motion raised a triable issue of fact, and the Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to the defendant (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann 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, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated December 7, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did [464]*464not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). However, the plaintiff’s evidence submitted in opposition to the motion raised a triable issue of fact, and the Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to the defendant (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 463, 696 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naiman-michaels-v-fisk-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack