Opinion
Submitted October 18, 2000.
November 13, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated October 18, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Marie Camille and Edrice Blaise, the defendant Yevgeniy Lipkin, the defendants Steven McNiff and Susan McNeil, and the defendant Eric Brown, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Baron Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Warren Zwirn of counsel), for appellants.
Cullen and Dykman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas J. Abernethy of counsel), for respondents Steven McNiff and Susan McNeil.
McMahon, Martine Gallagher, New York, N.Y. (Erika L. Omundson of counsel), for respondents Marie Camille and Edrice Blaise.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The Supreme Court improperly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, A.D.2d [2d Dept., June 5, 2000]; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs' papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, supra).