Rivera v. Oktavian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Oktavian

261 A.D.2d 599, 688 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5728

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 599 (Rivera v. Oktavian) 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

Rivera v. Oktavian, 261 A.D.2d 599, 688 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated August 31, 1998, as denied their cross 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Pasutto v Hacker, 251 AD2d 478; Jenkins v Kenny Trucking, 240 AD2d 709; Wolfram v Vassilou, 239 AD2d 340; Grullon v Chang Ok Chu, 240 AD2d 367). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, Mc-Ginity and Schmidt, 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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated August 31, 1998, as denied their cross 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Pasutto v Hacker, 251 AD2d 478; Jenkins v Kenny Trucking, 240 AD2d 709; Wolfram v Vassilou, 239 AD2d 340; Grullon v Chang Ok Chu, 240 AD2d 367). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, Mc-Ginity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 599, 688 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-oktavian-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack