Park v. Georgopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Park v. Georgopoulos

285 A.D.2d 637, 728 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7700

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

DecidedJuly 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 637 (Park v. Georgopoulos) 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

Park v. Georgopoulos, 285 A.D.2d 637, 728 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated October 17, 2000, as 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 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as they submitted admissible evidence demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiffs failed to come forward with competent [638]*638evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Serao v Lobrutto, 283 AD2d 632). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated October 17, 2000, as 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 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as they submitted admissible evidence demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiffs failed to come forward with competent [638]*638evidence to raise an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Serao v Lobrutto, 283 AD2d 632). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 637, 728 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/park-v-georgopoulos-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack