From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Pichardo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 15, 2016
140 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

06-15-2016

Aundrea WASHINGTON, appellant, et al., plaintiff, v. Kenny PICHARDO, respondent.

Gratt & Associates, P.C. (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Gene W. Wiggins of counsel), for respondent.


Gratt & Associates, P.C. (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.

Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Gene W. Wiggins of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Aundrea Washington appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated January 8, 2015, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by her on the ground that she 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the appellant 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 ). He submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the appellant's right shoulder did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v. Yshua, 59 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see McLoud v. Reyes, 82 A.D.3d 848, 849, 919 N.Y.S.2d 32 ; Resek v. Morreale, 74 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 903 N.Y.S.2d 120 ; Raleigh v. Ram, 60 A.D.3d 747, 747–748, 874 N.Y.S.2d 258 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant.

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Washington v. Pichardo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 15, 2016
140 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Washington v. Pichardo

Case Details

Full title:Aundrea WASHINGTON, appellant, et al., plaintiff, v. Kenny PICHARDO…

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

Date published: Jun 15, 2016

Citations

140 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
32 N.Y.S.3d 508
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4707

Citing Cases

Zachry v. Comunale

In opposition, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious…

Niciforo v. Orellana

However, evidence of contemporaneous range of motion limitations is not a prerequisite to recovery (see Perl…