Patterson v. Arshad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patterson v. Arshad

209 A.D.2d 232, 618 N.Y.S.2d 1025

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 232 (Patterson v. Arshad) 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

Patterson v. Arshad, 209 A.D.2d 232, 618 N.Y.S.2d 1025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about May 12, 1993, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for failure to satisfy the threshold requirements for serious injury in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[233]*233The medical evidence submitted by the moving defendants was contradictory and inconclusive with respect to whether or not plaintiffs injuries were "serious” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102. Accordingly, since defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about May 12, 1993, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for failure to satisfy the threshold requirements for serious injury in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[233]*233The medical evidence submitted by the moving defendants was contradictory and inconclusive with respect to whether or not plaintiffs injuries were "serious” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102. Accordingly, since defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 232, 618 N.Y.S.2d 1025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-arshad-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack