Tsiamis v. Wen Chaun Liu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tsiamis v. Wen Chaun Liu

259 A.D.2d 746, 685 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3176

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 746 (Tsiamis v. Wen Chaun Liu) 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

Tsiamis v. Wen Chaun Liu, 259 A.D.2d 746, 685 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for [747]*747personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated February 26, 1998, 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, with costs.

The affirmed reports of Dr. Kenneth Falvo and Dr. R. C. Krishna which the defendant submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment failed to establish the defendant’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Maisonaves v Friedman, 255 AD2d 494; Bocci v Turkowitz, 255 AD2d 476; Pietrocola v Battibulli, 238 AD2d 864; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 [747]*747personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated February 26, 1998, 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, with costs.

The affirmed reports of Dr. Kenneth Falvo and Dr. R. C. Krishna which the defendant submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment failed to establish the defendant’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Maisonaves v Friedman, 255 AD2d 494; Bocci v Turkowitz, 255 AD2d 476; Pietrocola v Battibulli, 238 AD2d 864; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 746, 685 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsiamis-v-wen-chaun-liu-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack