From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chin-Choy v. Baranowski

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 5, 2013
107 A.D.3d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-5

Allen CHIN–CHOY, appellant, v. Linda BARANOWSKI, respondent.

Terilli & Tintle, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Myles L. Tintle III of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Kathleen E. Fioretti of counsel), for respondent.



Terilli & Tintle, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Myles L. Tintle III of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Kathleen E. Fioretti of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, 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 February 15, 2012, which granted the defendant's 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met her 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine were not caused by the subject accident ( see Jilani v. Palmer, 83 A.D.3d 786, 787, 920 N.Y.S.2d 424), and that the alleged injuries to those regions of the plaintiff's spine, and to both of the plaintiff's wrists, 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).

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Chin-Choy v. Baranowski

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 5, 2013
107 A.D.3d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Chin-Choy v. Baranowski

Case Details

Full title:Allen CHIN–CHOY, appellant, v. Linda BARANOWSKI, respondent.

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

Date published: Jun 5, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
107 A.D.3d 657
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3961