Williams v. Hasenflue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Hasenflue

272 A.D.2d 470, 708 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5577

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 470 (Williams v. Hasenflue) 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

Williams v. Hasenflue, 272 A.D.2d 470, 708 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 15, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that the plaintiffs injury was not proximately caused by the subject car accident. While a disc herniation may constitute a serious injury, the plaintiff’s submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the subject accident was the proximate cause of his injuries (see, Cacaccio v Martin, 235 AD2d 384). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 15, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that the plaintiffs injury was not proximately caused by the subject car accident. While a disc herniation may constitute a serious injury, the plaintiff’s submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the subject accident was the proximate cause of his injuries (see, Cacaccio v Martin, 235 AD2d 384). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 470, 708 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hasenflue-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack