Stipes v. Kopf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stipes v. Kopf

255 A.D.2d 502, 680 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12647

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 502 (Stipes v. Kopf) 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

Stipes v. Kopf, 255 A.D.2d 502, 680 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated November 13, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the plaintiffs failure to sustain a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[503]*503The medical evidence submitted by the defendant made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion indicated that, at most, he sustained a “minor, mild or slight” limitation, which is insignificant within the meaning of the statute (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, 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 of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated November 13, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the plaintiffs failure to sustain a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[503]*503The medical evidence submitted by the defendant made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion indicated that, at most, he sustained a “minor, mild or slight” limitation, which is insignificant within the meaning of the statute (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 502, 680 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stipes-v-kopf-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack