From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Celestin v. Shawy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 4, 2015
126 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

03-04-2015

Dickens CELESTIN, appellant, v. Anthony J. SHAWY, et al., respondents.

Harmon, Linder, & Rogowsky (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, N.Y. (Anthony Orcel of counsel), for respondents.


Harmon, Linder, & Rogowsky (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.

Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, N.Y. (Anthony Orcel of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered June 4, 2014, 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 motion 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 lumbar 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 lumbar 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 ). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

RIVERA, J.P., HALL, ROMAN, COHEN and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Celestin v. Shawy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 4, 2015
126 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Celestin v. Shawy

Case Details

Full title:Dickens CELESTIN, appellant, v. Anthony J. SHAWY, et al., respondents.

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

Date published: Mar 4, 2015

Citations

126 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2 N.Y.S.3d 372
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 1773