From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ariel v. Prakopf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted September 6, 2000

October 10, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated August 2, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Frank V. Merlino, Garden City, N.Y. (David Holmes of counsel), for appellants.

Leo Friedlich, New York, N.Y. (Eric Sorenson of counsel), for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish as a matter of law that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Chaplain v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188; [2d Dept., June 5, 2000]; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs' papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplain v. Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, supra).


Summaries of

Ariel v. Prakopf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Ariel v. Prakopf

Case Details

Full title:MOSHE ARIEL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. THEODORE A. PRAKOPF, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 10, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 576