Tillman v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tillman v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

289 A.D.2d 397, 734 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 397 (Tillman v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority) 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

Tillman v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, 289 A.D.2d 397, 734 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered April 11, 2001, which denied their 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.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538; Osada v Taub, 259 AD2d 473; Mastromonica v Conklin, 246 AD2d 581; Thomas v Joyner, 237 AD2d 347). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered April 11, 2001, which denied their 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.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538; Osada v Taub, 259 AD2d 473; Mastromonica v Conklin, 246 AD2d 581; Thomas v Joyner, 237 AD2d 347). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 397, 734 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-metropolitan-suburban-bus-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack