Yosevitz v. Kahan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yosevitz v. Kahan

199 A.D.2d 499, 608 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12356

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 499 (Yosevitz v. Kahan) 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

Yosevitz v. Kahan, 199 A.D.2d 499, 608 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated October 16, 1991, which granted the separate motions of the defendant Michael Kahan and the defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority 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 that she had sustained a serious injury. Accordingly, the court properly granted the separate motions of the defendant Michael Kahan and the defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority 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, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated October 16, 1991, which granted the separate motions of the defendant Michael Kahan and the defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority 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 that she had sustained a serious injury. Accordingly, the court properly granted the separate motions of the defendant Michael Kahan and the defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 499, 608 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yosevitz-v-kahan-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack