Runkel v. Mike Ryan Tree Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Runkel v. Mike Ryan Tree Service, Inc.

285 A.D.2d 455, 727 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6918

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 455 (Runkel v. Mike Ryan Tree Service, Inc.) 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

Runkel v. Mike Ryan Tree Service, Inc., 285 A.D.2d 455, 727 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated March 26, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Ventura v Moritz, 255 AD2d 506; Yahya v Schwartz, 251 AD2d 498; cf., Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated March 26, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Ventura v Moritz, 255 AD2d 506; Yahya v Schwartz, 251 AD2d 498; cf., Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 455, 727 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/runkel-v-mike-ryan-tree-service-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack