Opinion
2014-02927
11-12-2014
Leroy FLOWERS, et al., appellants, v. Maria BHOLA, respondent.
Sim & Record, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellants. Deidre J. Tobin, Garden City, N.Y. (John M. McCormack of counsel), for respondent.
Sim & Record, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellants.
Deidre J. Tobin, Garden City, N.Y. (John M. McCormack of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated January 28, 2014, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Leroy Flowers 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 defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Leroy Flowers 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 papers submitted by the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiffs' claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that Leroy Flowers 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 ).
Since the defendant did not sustain her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs 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 ). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.