From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burke v. I Om Atif Hacking Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 11, 2017
146 A.D.3d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

01-11-2017

Peter L. BURKE, appellant, v. I OM ATIF HACKING CORP., et al., respondents.

Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, NY (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondents.


Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, NY (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated July 24, 2015, 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) 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 competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine 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, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of his spine (see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 218–219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

DILLON, J.P., HALL, SGROI, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Burke v. I Om Atif Hacking Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 11, 2017
146 A.D.3d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Burke v. I Om Atif Hacking Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Peter L. BURKE, appellant, v. I OM ATIF HACKING CORP., et al., respondents.

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

Date published: Jan 11, 2017

Citations

146 A.D.3d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 145
43 N.Y.S.3d 908

Citing Cases

Arbelo v. Kapica

Plaintiff has raised a "battle of the experts" sufficient to overcome the motion. (See Burke v I Om Atif…

Robinson v. N.Y. Cross Docking LLC

Plaintiff has raised a "battle of the experts" sufficient to overcome the motion. (See Burke v I Om Atif…