Olivares v. Cam Electronics Distributing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olivares v. Cam Electronics Distributing Corp.

264 A.D.2d 440, 693 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8693

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

DecidedAugust 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 440 (Olivares v. Cam Electronics Distributing Corp.) 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

Olivares v. Cam Electronics Distributing Corp., 264 A.D.2d 440, 693 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County [441]*441(Spires, J.), entered May 29, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint at the close of the evidence, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, as the plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered a serious injury as a matter of law (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Grotzer v Levy, 133 AD2d 67; Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County [441]*441(Spires, J.), entered May 29, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint at the close of the evidence, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, as the plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered a serious injury as a matter of law (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Grotzer v Levy, 133 AD2d 67; Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 440, 693 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olivares-v-cam-electronics-distributing-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack