General
Chong Zeilnhofer et al., Respondents, v. Jolene Marcinko et al., Appellants
245 A.D.2d 1070666 N.Y.S.2d 77·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1997·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Chong Zeilnhofer et al., Respondents, v Jolene Marcinko et al., Appellants.
[666 NYS2d 77]
[MAJORITY]
—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. '