| Flowers v Bhola |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07623 |
| Decided on November 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on November 12, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
ROBERT J. MILLER
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
2014-02927
(Index No. 16470/11)
v
Maria Bhola, respondent.
Sim & Record, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellants.
Deidre J. Tobin, Garden City, N.Y. (John M. McCormack of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated January 28, 2014, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Leroy Flowers 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 defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Leroy Flowers 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 papers submitted by the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiffs' claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that Leroy Flowers sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969).
Since the defendant did not sustain her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
RIVERA, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court