Rodriguez v. Burchette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Burchette

222 A.D.2d 572, 636 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12992

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 572 (Rodriguez v. Burchette) 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

Rodriguez v. Burchette, 222 A.D.2d 572, 636 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated August 5, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to establish that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Rhind v Naylor, 187 AD2d 498; Serio v Radin, 168 AD2d 612; Wright v Melendez, 140 AD2d 337). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated August 5, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to establish that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Rhind v Naylor, 187 AD2d 498; Serio v Radin, 168 AD2d 612; Wright v Melendez, 140 AD2d 337). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 572, 636 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-burchette-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack