Opinion
2017–06564 Index No. 19286/14
02-06-2019
Stephanie M. SALADINO, Appellant, v. Segundo K. QUINTEROS, Respondent.
Steven D. Dollinger, Huntington Station, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellant. Nancy L. Isserlis (Saretsky Katz & Dranoff, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Jonah S. Zweig ], of counsel), for respondent.
Steven D. Dollinger, Huntington Station, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellant.
Nancy L. Isserlis (Saretsky Katz & Dranoff, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Jonah S. Zweig ], of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident on January 22, 2012. The defendant 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. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendant met his 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 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute serious injuries 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 she sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (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 should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.