Schwartz v. Dumbrowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Dumbrowsky

282 A.D.2d 597, 723 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3764

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 597 (Schwartz v. Dumbrowsky) 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

Schwartz v. Dumbrowsky, 282 A.D.2d 597, 723 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered April 18, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Perez v Velez, 253 AD2d 865; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assocs., 239 AD2d 394; Marshall v Albano, 182 AD2d 614). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered April 18, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Perez v Velez, 253 AD2d 865; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assocs., 239 AD2d 394; Marshall v Albano, 182 AD2d 614). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 597, 723 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-dumbrowsky-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack