Palmer v. Los

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. Los

209 A.D.2d 391, 619 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11037

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 391 (Palmer v. Los) 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

Palmer v. Los, 209 A.D.2d 391, 619 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated April 19, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the papers submitted by the defendants in support of their motion that are in admissible form do not establish, prima facie, entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, but rather, raise questions of [392]*392fact with regard to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated April 19, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the papers submitted by the defendants in support of their motion that are in admissible form do not establish, prima facie, entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, but rather, raise questions of [392]*392fact with regard to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 391, 619 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-los-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack