Rajkov v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rajkov v. Eli Lilly & Co.

222 A.D.2d 569, 636 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12988

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 569 (Rajkov v. Eli Lilly & Co.) 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

Rajkov v. Eli Lilly & Co., 222 A.D.2d 569, 636 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered March 4, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Milena Rajkov had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the record fails to raise any triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that the plaintiff Milena Rajkov sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered March 4, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Milena Rajkov had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the record fails to raise any triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that the plaintiff Milena Rajkov sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 569, 636 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rajkov-v-eli-lilly-co-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack