From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kacperski v. Dandrea

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 22, 2014
121 A.D.3d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-10-22

Wieslaw KACPERSKI, appellant, v. Christina A. DANDREA, et al., respondents.

Surdez & Perez, P.C., Astoria, N.Y. (Kevin J. Perez of counsel), for appellant. Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, N.Y. (Jeffrey P. Yong of counsel), for respondents.


Surdez & Perez, P.C., Astoria, N.Y. (Kevin J. Perez of counsel), for appellant. Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, N.Y. (Jeffrey P. Yong of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), entered August 29, 2013, as granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the 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 order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to meet 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; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957). The papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address the plaintiff's claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180–day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Che Hong Kim v. Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969).

Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see id.). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Kacperski v. Dandrea

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 22, 2014
121 A.D.3d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Kacperski v. Dandrea

Case Details

Full title:Wieslaw KACPERSKI, appellant, v. Christina A. DANDREA, et al., respondents.

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

Date published: Oct 22, 2014

Citations

121 A.D.3d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7127
995 N.Y.S.2d 533