Pierre-Paul v. Price

Full title: Richard Pierre-Paul, respondent, v. Brandon A. Price, 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. 1721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

2016-00611

03-08-2017

Richard Pierre-Paul, respondent, v. Brandon A. Price, et al., appellants.

Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville, NY (Susan J. Mitola and Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for appellants. Levine and Wiss, PLLC (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, NY, of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS SHERI S. ROMAN VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ. (Index No. 603368/14)

Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville, NY (Susan J. Mitola and Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for appellants.

Levine and Wiss, PLLC (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, NY, 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, Nassau County (Capetola, J.), entered November 16, 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.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, 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 injuries 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 he sustained a serious injury to the lumbar region of his spine (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., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur. ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court