From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arias v. Cnty. of Suffolk

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 5, 2013
107 A.D.3d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-5

Lissette ARIAS, appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., respondents.

Cannon & Acosta, LLP, Huntington, N.Y. (June Redeker of counsel), for appellant. Stuart P. Besen, Garden City, N.Y., for respondents.



Cannon & Acosta, LLP, Huntington, N.Y. (June Redeker of counsel), for appellant. Stuart P. Besen, Garden City, N.Y., for respondents.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated March 30, 2012, which granted the defendants' 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, 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, inter alia, competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute serious injuries 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, however, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine ( see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 218–219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Arias v. Cnty. of Suffolk

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 5, 2013
107 A.D.3d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Arias v. Cnty. of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:Lissette ARIAS, appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., respondents.

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

Date published: Jun 5, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
967 N.Y.S.2d 98
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3957

Citing Cases

Felix v. Duane

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury…

Burgett v. Schaffhauser

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury…