Pinkas v. Wan Tung Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinkas v. Wan Tung Lee

301 A.D.2d 640, 753 N.Y.S.2d 875

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 640 (Pinkas v. Wan Tung Lee) 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

Pinkas v. Wan Tung Lee, 301 A.D.2d 640, 753 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 1, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the existence of factual issues with respect to whether they sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contention. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, McGinity, Schmidt and Crane, 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 from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 1, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the existence of factual issues with respect to whether they sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contention. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, McGinity, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 640, 753 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkas-v-wan-tung-lee-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack