Schlesinger v. Bitzonides

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schlesinger v. Bitzonides

8 A.D.3d 468, 778 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8498

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 468 (Schlesinger v. Bitzonides) 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

Schlesinger v. Bitzonides, 8 A.D.3d 468, 778 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated July 21, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and dismissed the complaint.

[469]*469Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Although the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, 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 and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated July 21, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and dismissed the complaint.

[469]*469Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Although the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 468, 778 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlesinger-v-bitzonides-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack