Teleki v. Krishnan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teleki v. Krishnan

199 A.D.2d 312, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11898

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 1993·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated October 2, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing of having sustained a serious injury. Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, 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, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated October 2, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing of having sustained a serious injury. Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Teleki v. Krishnan, 199 A.D.2d 312, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

199 A.D.2d 312 (Teleki v. Krishnan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related