Prather v. Potterton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prather v. Potterton

234 A.D.2d 353, 651 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12898

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 353 (Prather v. Potterton) 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

Prather v. Potterton, 234 A.D.2d 353, 651 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Keith Potterton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated November 30, 1995, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for reargument, vacated its prior order dated September 15,1995, which had granted his motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and thereupon denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined, upon reargument, that the plaintiff presented sufficient medical evidence of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) to defeat the appellant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; see also, Bryan v Brancato, 213 AD2d 577; Kim v Cohen, 208 AD2d 807). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, 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 defendant Keith Potterton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated November 30, 1995, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for reargument, vacated its prior order dated September 15,1995, which had granted his motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and thereupon denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined, upon reargument, that the plaintiff presented sufficient medical evidence of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) to defeat the appellant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017; see also, Bryan v Brancato, 213 AD2d 577; Kim v Cohen, 208 AD2d 807). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 353, 651 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prather-v-potterton-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack