Cortes v. Donaldson

Full title: Andrea Cortes, respondent, v. Alfred Donaldson, et al., appellants.

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 8, 2017

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 1670 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

2016-02017

03-08-2017

Andrea Cortes, respondent, v. Alfred Donaldson, et al., appellants.

Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY [Marshall D. Sweetbaum and Joel A. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for appellants. Bernstone & Grieco, LLP, New York, NY (Matthew A. Schroeder of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN SHERI S. ROMAN SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ. (Index No. 10503/13)

Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY [Marshall D. Sweetbaum and Joel A. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for appellants.

Bernstone & Grieco, LLP, New York, NY (Matthew A. Schroeder of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated December 21, 2015, which denied their 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 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 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). 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 AD3d 614).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219).

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

RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN, HINDS-RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur. ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court