Zeilnhofer v. Marcinko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zeilnhofer v. Marcinko

245 A.D.2d 1070, 666 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13840

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 1997·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that Chong Zeilnhofer (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, DePetres v Kaiser, 244 AD2d 851; Nigro v Penree, 238 AD2d 908; Thomas v Hulslander, 233 AD2d 567). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ. '

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that Chong Zeilnhofer (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, DePetres v Kaiser, 244 AD2d 851; Nigro v Penree, 238 AD2d 908; Thomas v Hulslander, 233 AD2d 567). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ. '

Zeilnhofer v. Marcinko, 245 A.D.2d 1070, 666 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

245 A.D.2d 1070 (Zeilnhofer v. Marcinko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related