Smith v. Wetzel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Wetzel

294 A.D.2d 488, 742 N.Y.S.2d 568, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258

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

DecidedMay 20, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 488 (Smith v. Wetzel) 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

Smith v. Wetzel, 294 A.D.2d 488, 742 N.Y.S.2d 568, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated May 4, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant’s motion papers failed to establish, prima [489]*489facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated May 4, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant’s motion papers failed to establish, prima [489]*489facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Junco v Ranzi, 288 AD2d 440; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 488, 742 N.Y.S.2d 568, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-wetzel-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack