D.R. v. Kazachok
| Decision Date | 01 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2016-07108, Index No. 7235/11. |
| Citation | 63 N.Y.S.3d 95,155 A.D.3d 657 |
| Parties | D.R. (Anonymous), an infant by his father and natural guardian, Rudolf RAKHAMINOV, et al., respondents, v. Roman KAZACHOK, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
155 A.D.3d 657
63 N.Y.S.3d 95
D.R. (Anonymous), an infant by his father and natural guardian, Rudolf RAKHAMINOV, et al., respondents,
v.
Roman KAZACHOK, et al., appellants.
2016-07108, Index No. 7235/11.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 1, 2017.
Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York, NY (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine of counsel), for appellant Roman Kazachok.
Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY [Marshall D. Sweetbaum ], of counsel), for appellant Diana Yagudayeva.
Michael N. David, New York, NY (Stacy N. Baden of counsel), for respondents.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Roman Kazachok and Diana Yagudayeva separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated May 11, 2016, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Rudolf Rakhaminov, individually, against each of them, on the ground that the plaintiff Rudolf Rakhaminov did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident, and as granted, without prejudice, those branches of their respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff D.R., an infant
by his father and natural guardian, Rudolf Rakhaminov, against each of them, on the ground that the infant plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident.
ORDERED that the appeals from so much of the order as granted those branches of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Uhl v. D'Onofrio Gen. Contractors, Corp.
...of the order cross-appealed from (see CPLR 5511 ; Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 144, 904 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; see also D.R. v. Kazachok, 155 A.D.3d 657, 657–658, 63 N.Y.S.3d 95 ); and it is further,ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof denying those br......
-
Uhl v. D'Onofrio Gen. Contractors, Corp.
... ... cross-appealed from (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, ... Inc., 76 A.D.3d 144; see also D. R. v Kazachok, ... 155 A.D.3d 657, 657-658); and it is further, ORDERED that the ... order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions ... ...
-
Seong Deok Choe v. Sumba
...facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180–day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see D.R. v. Kazachok, 155 A.D.3d 657, 63 N.Y.S.3d 95 ). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to th......
- People v. Hill