Sobel v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sobel v. Jordan

286 A.D.2d 726, 730 N.Y.S.2d 457, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8535

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 726 (Sobel v. Jordan) 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

Sobel v. Jordan, 286 A.D.2d 726, 730 N.Y.S.2d 457, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8535 (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 (Segal, J.), dated September 28, 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 defendant made out a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not suffer a significant disfigurement as a result of the accident and the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lisa v Pastor, 262 AD2d 368; Estrella v Marano, 255 AD2d 358). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. 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 to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated September 28, 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 defendant made out a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not suffer a significant disfigurement as a result of the accident and the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lisa v Pastor, 262 AD2d 368; Estrella v Marano, 255 AD2d 358). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 726, 730 N.Y.S.2d 457, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sobel-v-jordan-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack