Rich v. Colossal Carting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rich v. Colossal Carting Corp.

296 A.D.2d 392, 745 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7082

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 296 A.D.2d 392 (Rich v. Colossal Carting Corp.) 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

Rich v. Colossal Carting Corp., 296 A.D.2d 392, 745 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated July 30, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to establish prima facie their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated July 30, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to establish prima facie their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 392, 745 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-v-colossal-carting-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack