Skolnick v. Zucker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skolnick v. Zucker

172 A.D.2d 514, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4386

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

DecidedApril 1, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 514 (Skolnick v. Zucker) 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

Skolnick v. Zucker, 172 A.D.2d 514, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated July 10, 1989, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated December 22, 1988, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment upon the plaintiff’s default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Stefanie Zucker.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the defendants satisfied their initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not suffer "serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff then failed to adduce any evidence to warrant a trial on this issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion to vacate an order granting summary judgment to the defendants. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, 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 arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated July 10, 1989, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated December 22, 1988, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment upon the plaintiff’s default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Stefanie Zucker.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the defendants satisfied their initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not suffer "serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff then failed to adduce any evidence to warrant a trial on this issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion to vacate an order granting summary judgment to the defendants. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 514, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skolnick-v-zucker-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack