From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Psomas v. Kehoe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 10, 1998
253 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

August 10, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).


The defendants' moving papers, which included, inter cilia, an affidavit of an orthopedic' surgeon, established that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, including a conclusory affidavit of the plaintiff's chiropractor, were insufficient to raise a question :of fact on this issue (see, Cacaccio v. Martin, 235 A.D.2d 384).

In light of our determination, the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied as academic.

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Psomas v. Kehoe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 10, 1998
253 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Psomas v. Kehoe

Case Details

Full title:ANNETTE PSOMAS, Respondent, v. SEAN P. KEHOE et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Aug 10, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 322

Citing Cases

O'Neil v. Geico

We reject both contentions. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in refusing to consider…

Navatar Grp. v. Seale & Assocs.

See Cronin v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 60 A.D.3d 803 (2ndDept. 2009); Psomas v Kehoe, 253 A.D.2d 456…