From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Preston v. Ziane

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 20, 2014
120 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-08-20

Catrese PRESTON, et al., appellants, v. Cherif ZIANE, et al., respondents.

Miller Eisenman & Kanuck, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kanuck of counsel), for appellants. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Marjorie E. Bornes of counsel), for respondents.


Miller Eisenman & Kanuck, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kanuck of counsel), for appellants. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Marjorie E. Bornes of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), dated January 9, 2013, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Catrese Preston 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 defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Catrese Preston (hereinafter the injured 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). However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact through the affirmation of Dr. Gregory Lieberman as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature as a result of the subject accident which rendered her unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 days of the first 180 days thereafter ( see Hughes v. Turner, 237 A.D.2d 331, 655 N.Y.S.2d 441).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Preston v. Ziane

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 20, 2014
120 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Preston v. Ziane

Case Details

Full title:Catrese PRESTON, et al., appellants, v. Cherif ZIANE, et al., respondents.

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

Date published: Aug 20, 2014

Citations

120 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
120 A.D.3d 647
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 5850

Citing Cases

Paneto v. Clause

Plaintiff further testified to difficulty in doing normal household chores such as laundry as well as…

Innocent v. Golden Touch Transp. of NY, Inc.

The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the…