Opinion
2019–03171 Index No. 609807/17
02-16-2022
Danielle P. FANFAN, appellant, v. Boguslaw SOWACKI, et al., respondents.
Hackett Law, P.C., Garden City, NY (Patrick Hackett and Carlo Sciara of counsel), for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrisey & Moskovits, P.C. (Robert D. Grace, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondents.
Hackett Law, P.C., Garden City, NY (Patrick Hackett and Carlo Sciara of counsel), for appellant.
Baker, McEvoy, Morrisey & Moskovits, P.C. (Robert D. Grace, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondents.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), entered December 7, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, 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 insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
On June 7, 2017, the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle, operated by the defendant Boguslaw Sowacki and owned by the defendant Stream Management Corp., that collided with a parked vehicle. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. The defendants moved 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 accident. In an order entered December 7, 2018, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The defendants failed to meet 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., Inc., 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 papers submitted by the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's claim, set forth in her bill of particulars, that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180–day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Che Hong Kim v. Kossoff, 90 A.D.3d 969, 934 N.Y.S.2d 867 ; Rouach v. Betts, 71 A.D.3d 977, 897 N.Y.S.2d 242 ; cf. Richards v. Tyson, 64 A.D.3d 760, 761, 883 N.Y.S.2d 575 ).
Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the submissions by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v. Kossoff, 90 A.D.3d at 969, 934 N.Y.S.2d 867 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
IANNACCI, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and FORD, JJ., concur.