From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hossan v. Hernandez

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 10, 2012
94 A.D.3d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-04-10

Khaled HOSSAN, appellant, v. William HERNANDEZ, et al., respondents.

H. Bruce Fischer, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondents.


H. Bruce Fischer, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated May 11, 2011, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Rodriguez v. Huerfano, 46 A.D.3d 794, 795, 849 N.Y.S.2d 275).

However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical region of his spine constituted a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and/or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 215–218, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied*879 the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hossan v. Hernandez

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 10, 2012
94 A.D.3d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Hossan v. Hernandez

Case Details

Full title:Khaled HOSSAN, appellant, v. William HERNANDEZ, et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 10, 2012

Citations

94 A.D.3d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2638
941 N.Y.S.2d 878

Citing Cases

Camarda v. Tyler

Dr. Cozien opined with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the automobile accident of September 8,…