Werber v. Cespedes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Werber v. Cespedes

226 A.D.2d 365, 640 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3430

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

DecidedApril 1, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 365 (Werber v. Cespedes) 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

Werber v. Cespedes, 226 A.D.2d 365, 640 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

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 February 16, 1995, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Summary judgment was thus properly awarded to the defendants (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Almonacid v Meltzer, 222 AD2d 630; Georgia v Ramautar, 180 AD2d 713; Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated February 16, 1995, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Summary judgment was thus properly awarded to the defendants (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Almonacid v Meltzer, 222 AD2d 630; Georgia v Ramautar, 180 AD2d 713; Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 AD2d 856; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 365, 640 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werber-v-cespedes-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack