Rawa v. Kroeger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rawa v. Kroeger

229 A.D.2d 947, 646 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8983

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D.2d 947 (Rawa v. Kroeger) 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

Rawa v. Kroeger, 229 A.D.2d 947, 646 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury, and plaintiff "failed to sustain [his] burden of making ' "a prima facie showing of serious injury sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” ’ ” (Eldred v Stoddard, 217 AD2d 952, 952-953; see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The "certified report” of plaintiffs physician was based upon plaintiff’s subjective complaints and was not sufficient to establish a serious injury (see, Eldred v Stoddard, supra, at 953). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury, and plaintiff "failed to sustain [his] burden of making ' "a prima facie showing of serious injury sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” ’ ” (Eldred v Stoddard, 217 AD2d 952, 952-953; see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The "certified report” of plaintiffs physician was based upon plaintiff’s subjective complaints and was not sufficient to establish a serious injury (see, Eldred v Stoddard, supra, at 953). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 947, 646 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rawa-v-kroeger-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack