From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierre-Paul v. Price

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2017
148 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

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.


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, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

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 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 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 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). 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 N.Y.3d 208, 218–219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 ).

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


Summaries of

Pierre-Paul v. Price

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2017
148 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Pierre-Paul v. Price

Case Details

Full title:Richard PIERRE–PAUL, respondent, v. Brandon A. PRICE, et al., appellants.

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

Date published: Mar 8, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
48 N.Y.S.3d 745